Clement of Alexandria

Audio loading...

Welcome! You can log in or create an account to save favorites, edit keywords, transcripts, and more.



AI Suggested Keywords:


Monastic Theology Set 3 of 3

AI Summary: 





We had arrived at chapter 12 of the first book of the Pedagogy, nearing the conclusion. And you remember that there, there was a recollection of Irenaeus, very clear, although he never mentions him by name, as far as I know, in the whole of his work, in all of his work. But that image of God forming a human person, in his image and likeness, out of the earth, this just being different, as we saw, this just being more interior, more intellectual, and also the difference between the image and the likeness comes out clearly and in a different way in Clement than it did in Irenaeus. Here's what our editor says about that. We find here clearly expressed the dynamic doctrine of the image and likeness, which


is placed as such favor in the Greek patristic tradition. The image which cannot be lost, and the likeness which is to be won, which is to be reconquered, which is to be won, so the likeness which is lost in sin is to be reconquered. Remember that, remember that in Irenaeus we don't find much stress on what sin has done to the image, as far as I remember, it's mostly an upward climb in Irenaeus, rather than a big drop, changing drastically the situation. My memory is not precise, but sin doesn't seem to have, whereas often in the Greek fathers, I guess, and also later in the West, certainly, you find this notion that with sin likeness was lost, as if man had been created perfect in the image and likeness and then had lost the likeness. So they're two quite different schemes. It's suggested that this exegesis of Clement had been designed to be part of a Gnostic


exegesis, in which the earthly man was in the image, the psychic man was in a resemblance, and the pneumatic man, the spiritual man, was katavidian, which would mean, what does it mean, katavidian, I don't know, I don't know if it's identity, or it's more than the likeness. It's stronger than him, the likeness. He didn't translate the other two Greek phrases, so it's somewhere between identity and the likeness, however it's possible. So three levels, Clement would be reclining to them. Then there was that injunction to take on the impress of the life of our Savior. Different accent here, because he's talking about imitating the life of Jesus, something


you don't find much of in Irenaeus. Here it's to bear the impress of the hands of God, and the hand of God, of course, is the word, but here it becomes a kind of moral imitation of the life of Jesus, which of course fits better in Clement's book, which is about the way to live, whereas Irenaeus was not writing about that directly. There's a big change in balance as we move from Irenaeus to Clement. And then, anoint ourselves with the ointment of sweet fragrance. Now, that comes from Psalm 44, but at the same time there's a kind of echo of the Song of Songs there. There's something that we don't find in our present English translations, but it was in the Latin. Remember, we shall run in the odor of your ointments, in the first stanza of the Song of Songs. It was in the Latin, and it was also in the Septuagint. And that comes out here, and it comes out elsewhere also. There are a lot of things that he alludes to.


The footsteps of God, you see, and the ointment suggests that connection. And notice the anointing and the empress of the Word, or the Logos of the Word and the Spirit. Now we get this accent that's going to go throughout the pedagogy, and a lot of those chapters that we won't be reading. Simplicity or self-sufficiency, which is Stoic and Clement makes it Christian. Teaching each one of us to be his own storehouse, where he says, take no anxious thought for tomorrow, meaning that the man who has devoted himself to Christ ought to be sufficient to


himself. And moreover, be the life which provides for each day by itself. This turns out to be interesting, because the sufficiency actually is the Word which dwells in us. And in other words, there's a very profound mood in this, even though it sounds kind of banal. Of course, for it is not in war, but in peace that we are being trained. He called us soldiers of peace, remember, and it goes up to those. Oh, haven't you got 235? Just the last bit of 234 on the top of 235, question and comment. War needs great preparation, and luxury craves profusion. Notice the two sides of the Greek psychology, the angry side and the desiring side. But peace and love, simple and quiet sisters, require no arms or excessive preparation. Think of Mary and Martha. The Word is their sustenance, there they are learning the Word.


Martha's listening to God. So there's a kind of pattern, you see, in Greek psychology. Our superintendence in instruction and discipline is the office of the Word, from whom we learn frugality and generosity. Being assimilated to God by participation in moral excellence. That's a reference to Plato. You shall be what you do not hope and cannot guess in virtue. Okay, I'm skipping down to the bottom. There's a characteristic passage there, bottom of the left-hand column. What else do we say is incumbent on the rational creature? I mean, man, in the contemplation of the divine, there's a near pun in Greek there, because the divine is theion, and the contemplation is theosiste, in the infinitive, as if they came from the same root. It doesn't come through, of course, in the translation.


It's as if that were the nature of the human person, were to contemplate God, and as if the nature of God is to be contemplated. It's not from an intellectual point of view. I say, too, that it's requisite to contemplate human nature. This is going to come out in Book Three, when you look at the chapter on the true beauty in Book Three. It turns out that in knowing yourself, you know God. Something which we're at today, in the Middle East. Yeah, I was wondering about that. I don't know Plato well enough, but it's so strong, when we get to the chapter in Book Three, it's a Socratic thing to know yourself, right? That's Socrates. And is it also in Plato, that in knowing yourself, you actually know God? Yes, both Plato and Pentagoras have the, you know, we only know the Pentagoras, but he has this, by discovering the truth of the soul, he discovered the truth of the cosmos,


and that's the miraculous, overcoming of the division between the soul and the cosmos. Yes. With Pentagoras, it takes the form of, you discover, say, the reality of numbers and two-headed figures in your soul, and then what? Discover that those are the principles that organize the external universe, and then you realize that your intelligence, that is, participates in the divine intelligence that sets up the whole cosmos, and with Plato, that's the same thing, but there's also a process of discovery of the universe, the soul, through Plato, this time. So it's clearer than before. Yes, I think he gets it more from Plato than from these, no one knows what was happening. No, I didn't think that he got it from these, but just today, that's where we hear it from. Yes, we do. Maybe it's a coincidence that he was, and he did just say that he should be able to


construct the universe in the form of the soul. That's right. The comet is in the same line. When he talks about, in the Astrometry, when he talks about the different kinds of learning and why we should spend our time on it. According to which image also we are, now there's a musical image here, it's harmonizing ourself to the instructor, and making the words and our deeds symphonon, is the Greek word, making them, harmonize as well, but he uses a synonym, making them ring with the same note as a word, to live a true life. So, as he began the Procepticus with a musical image, remember, the song of the logos, here he comes back to it close to the end of his book. Then, that's a, man as a contemplative, that's also a stoic definition, which Cormac


picks up in various places. That's so helpful if you know what's behind it. It has a different focus than, it's not a scripture, or the life of Christ, but it has to do with the examination of the planetary patterns, and the divine politics, and it depends on that, and it's boring, and other things, it's this kind of dialectical emphasis of getting to the root of what's true, and if you can get to the truth, and then you can touch the divinity, and then that divinity, you are assimilated to it, even if you find


it, but you don't want it. That's one way of moving, as it were, towards the Creator. Today we might think in terms of creativity itself, but there it's in terms of contemplation of what has been created, and thereby putting ourselves, as it were, in the position and posture of the Creator. Now we get to chapter 13, the final chapter in book 1, and it comes across as being a big chunk of philosophy. It depends a lot on the translation, because if you translate logos as reason throughout there, it sounds like pure stoicism. The translator in Source Chr├ętien, who made the French translation, has left it logos throughout, and so it becomes clear what Pramana is doing. Because what he's doing is just giving you a piece of philosophy, natural philosophy, historic philosophy, moral philosophy, and then he's saying that to be aligned with


the logos, with reason, is to be aligned with the word of God, and so he makes it into Christian morality, he sort of assumes it or subsumes it into the Christian logos, into the Christian word, which is just another example of what he's doing all the time. Everything that is contrary to right reason is sin. Wow, that strikes us as very unnatural, very human, very unreal, in a sense. But the word is logos, and he's playing on that word logos throughout. But there's another one for right reason. Yeah, there is. There's something there. It's not the simple logos, nor is it. Orthon, from logon from orthon. So he starts out, that's fairly on the philosophical level, and then he's going to remove the modify the word.


Let's see what others are researching this thing. Now, she uses reason up to a certain point and then switches over to word, and that's okay, but it's necessary to point out that it's the same Greek word for love. The philosophers define the most generic fashion, it's on lust and fear and pleasure and so on, each of them in terms of reason. If you're reading Saint Augustine, you're probably talking about love, and I'm not talking about truth, but I remember where he says that every virtue is a species of love, or a modality of love, in some of the devices, as if there's only one commandment. Here he's talking in terms of reason. If then disobedience in reference to reason is the generating cause of sin, how can we escape the conclusion that obedience to reason, the logos, so he's identifying reason with


the logos, the word of God which is praise, which we call faith. Now, there's a definition of faith that he quickly shoots out, obedience to reason. It will be the efficacious cause of duty. Then, there's a lot of this kind of thinking that just, for me, just doesn't come through in a certain way. I don't know the nuances between a Greek word and a, so when you talk about duty and responsibility, virtue and so on. Is there a difference when he says that obedience to reason is the actual word? In Greek, is there a whole logos? Yeah, there's, there must be something else. The reason must be something else, but there's a ton of logos. Oh, there's only one word, there's only one logos.


In other words, the translator has done that. Obedience to the logos, hyphen, which we call faith. Now, notice that faith is not just adherence to something that you believe, to a proposition of truth, to dogma here, but it's obedience to the commandments. And here, the commandments are made identical with reason. We may not reflect on it, but there are many different ways you can define faith. There's another way of defining faith is confidence in God, a more Protestant approach, whereas the Roman Catholic approach at the time of Trent was that faith is adherence to the revelation of God, the truth of God is taught by the faith, and here we have something else, which is very biblical. It turns out that faith somehow embraces all those things. The problem is when you absolutize one of those things. Okay, now the man who sins, sins against reason, and so becomes a beast, because he's


irrational. He becomes irrational, he's like a beast, and he no longer speaks. Remember that the logos is the word for speech and also for reason. Given up to lust, and then he's got these mutations. He's got a distinction down here between scopos and telos, which we find also in Cassian. I thought there might be some influence, but it's a stoic definition. It's between the end and the goal, as we usually translate it. In Cassian's First Conference, Remember Thou the Moses, there's another connection with Cassian that comes up later, so there may actually be some derivation in the First Conference of Cassian. Christian conduct is the operation of the rational soul in accordance with the correct judgment and aspiration after the truth, which attains its destiny through the body, the soul's consort and ally. The life of Christians is a system of reasonable actions.


You can see the danger in that kind of stress, and if you overplay that, and reason, rationalism, if you don't point out that there are different levels of reason, Christianity can be made into a pretty heavy-footed system. It can be turned into a moralism, which is very heavy. So one has to work with that weird reason that there is. Question from the audience Yes, because you can make reason into a law, can't you? If reason is conceived in a certain way, it can be made a law which is analogous to the Old Testament law, the law of the Pharisees, in which everything is fixed, and in which the dynamism and the grace dimension of Christianity is disappeared.


It might be considered as just a grace to do the law, but then you ask yourself, well, what's the use of being a Christian? However, Clement, a conference leader, he corrects that in other places. That is, if those things talk part of logos, an unfailing energy, there shouldn't be energy, but unfailing exercise, which we would call faith. So faith is the unfailing exercise, the continual exercise of these commandments. The system, or system, is the commandments of the Lord. They turn back on us as the ball bounces. We do something for our neighbor, and it will bounce back to our neighbor, on him that throws it. Then he makes a distinction, a curious distinction here, which sends on towards this further work, between the things that... This is the other connection with Cashin, because this is there too. Cashin talks about Martha and Mary, and then he says the things that Martha is doing, the


active things, are good only for this life, but there's something that remains forever, and that's contemplation, and that's the part of Mary. Do you remember that in the first conference? And you always get into trouble with this distinction. Some relate only to life here, and others which relate to the blessed life beyond it. Linus foreplayed this. Dividing human actions or human activities into categories, some of which are strictly natural, strictly earthly, is to begin to let that distinction creep in, which in some way frustrates the incarnation, or frustrates the simplicity of life. And of course, which the Gnostics did very thoroughly, cutting it into sections, slicing it apart. And Clement is getting right on the edge of it here. As he does whenever he makes that distinction between the Gnostic and the ordinary Christian, which he does, you know, continually and strongly. So some duties are ordained with reference to life, others for the blessed life.


I don't know where that started. It runs throughout to these stories. Just living and living well. The commandments issued with respect to natural life were published to the multitude, but those that are suited for living well, living well is more than ordinary virtue of what we would ordinarily consider living well, and from which eternal life springs, we have to go straight to the scriptures for this. Now there's some beauty in it, there's some depth in it, at the same time there's this beautiful shadow. Our editor tells us that he's dividing morality into two kinds, an exoteric or ordinary morality, which Christians share with the pagans, okay, which the ordinary Christian lives, and basically those are the same things that a non-Christian would have to do to live a good life. Then there are some special things which appertain to the Gnostic, the esoteric tradition, the insider in Christianity, and those you have to get straight from the scriptures, and he's


not going to talk about those here, but those you can be taught, as it were, how to learn them in parables and in the metaphor of the scriptures, but you have to get them directly yourself, and you see there's something there. The fact is that the esoteric tradition of Christianity would be what you learn directly from the Word, what you learn directly from God. That's a legitimate esoteric tradition, isn't it? Not secrets that are passed down by men, but the intimate disclosure of the Holy Spirit or of the Logos in your own heart. But it's tricky when you try to turn that into literature, or to theorize about it. Any questions about that? That was a real thicket of philosophical stuff. Now, unfortunately, I don't have a text for you. I'm just going to have to read a little bit, and I'll try to take some dense passages,


and we can talk about them a bit. Let me give you, first of all, the contents of books two and three. The first book stands by itself in setting up the theory of the pedagogue, and kind of describing who he is and what he does, and so on, the theology of it. The second and third book are not distinguished from one another very clearly, and they're just about the different sectors of life and how a Christian should live. The basic theme seems to be simplicity. And I think you may have a table of contents. These are the chapters. How we should conduct ourselves in eating and drinking, the things that you use, banquets, laughter, obscene talk, what about marriage, sleep, what to wear on your feet. And then book three has a certain unity about it, but book two and three are almost continuous. The first chapter of book three is on true beauty, and then there are a number of others


hovering around the same subject. This is something important to comment, and evidently to the people he is teaching, that we ought not to cultivate artificial beauty against manifestation, the kind of companionship of going to the gods, frugality, and riches, bodily exercise. And then finally, chapter 11, a general summary. And in chapter 12, a lot of scripture passages which comprise, as it were, a revealed summary of what he's saying. And then finally, the conclusion, which we'll read, and that hymn to the lovers. Okay, skipping book two, I'd like to look at just chapter one of book three, and then the conclusion, chapter 12. I've got a couple of texts here. This is page 234, where we're going to light here in chapter one of book three.


No, not 234. 271. I'll use this one, and then we can compare when necessary.


Okay, book three, chapter one on the true beauty, page 271 in the Nicene Protestant. This is a very profound chapter. It's very important, actually. He seems to be talking about a moral question, a question of behavior, importantly. He gets to the theological bottom of this thing. It's the greatest of all lessons to know oneself. Okay, that's Socrates. That's in Plato, and Lick was speaking about it before. For if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God, he will be made like God, not by wearing gold or long robes, but by well-doing, and by requiring as few things as possible. Well, notice, it's basically the knowledge that makes one like God, and then the kind of behavior that follows from it, which can be summed up in simplicity in some way, okay, and not adorning oneself, and not adding anything. Now, you get the power of the notion, the image that's under this, that when you become


somehow, the way that you become identical by God, with God, is by moving towards and moving away from those extra outside embellishments, and then the beauty of God, which is God in some way, times three. It's amazing, Socrates, because for those of us who walk around with this, you know, one broke, and had no good physical beauty himself, and then was praised by his fellows for the beauty that was in him as he saw, and you know, that was really the essence of Plato's, you know, apocryphal elevation of Socrates as a kind of hero. The same thing about Christ here, because at the end he says, well, Christ wasn't a beautiful person, but it was the word God in him, and we'll get to that at the end of this chapter. It's interesting what you're saying actually, because under this, this is the evidence of being mighty, being mighty in the sense of Christ, and of course that he doesn't know


his God, but he's not having to look back, he can't help it. That's right. He can't help it, but he has to be absolutely known, he's not a bad person, he has to be a good human being, a God who has a future, a God who has a vision, and so on. There's also a connection with the letter of John, if I can, this is my Bible, with the letter of John here, remember, where we shall be, we shall see him as he is, we shall be like him, we shall see him as he is. But the part about self-knowledge is not there, and today, as I said, that's what we hear from the way of the East, where we're like, find yourself, find the Atman, find God. Now God alone is in need of nothing and rejoices most when he sees us bright with the ornament of intelligence, that's apparently a pretty good translation, Cosmos de Anoyas, de Anoyas.


And rejoices in him who is arrayed in chastity, the sacred stone of the body. We've got the idea, there's something in the mind and there's something in the body. What's in the mind is connected with the intelligence, and of course for Clement it would be gnosis or wisdom, and what's in the body is chastity, and that's somehow connected with it. He doesn't say that explicitly, but there's a relation between the two. Now he's going to be talking about this beauty in different ways as he goes through it, but they're all connected. And then he gives you this typical Greek psychology, which is, the one who has written most about this is a man who wrote, a Maximus Professor, who wrote the whole history of tribe, apartheid psychology. Since the soul then consists of three divisions, let me make a diagram. The intellect, and I'm very pleased with Peggy Monaco, So, that's the intellect, or any intellect is identical to the inner self,


which is called the reason, in fact, it is the inner man, is the inner man. That's pretty deep, isn't it? But it's a real bias. It's a real slant. It's quite an assumption. But the intellect is a person, say, more deeply or more perfectly than anything else that's in the universe. It's the inner man which is the ruler of this man that is seen. And that one, in another respect, the idea is that this is the ruler of everything else and this is ruled by God. And later it turns out that the relationship between this and God is extremely close. And God means well. The irascible part, in Google, what they call fumigant, and the scholastics, in other words, are the same,


they're called irascible. Irascible in other words they're contradictory. And you'll find people who put a positive interpretation of it much more dignified. But he has both of them as if they were rather undesirable beasts, both of these lower faculties which the intellect had to keep in check. The rest of the poem reads, The apathetic, which is the third definition, the apathetic, the desire of the mind. There's many shapes of a proteus, the god of the sea.


Then there's this allusion to the Odyssey. They have to grab this sea god when he comes up to take his nap. And he turns into seven red things before they ask the question. He comes up to take his nap among the seals on the beach. And they pin him and say, Old man, tell us, how do we get home? We, with a cry, sprang up and rushed upon him, locking him in our arms. I forget what island they were on. But the old man did not forget the subtlety of his arts. First he turned into a great bearded lion, and then into a serpent, and then to a leopard, and then to a great boar. And he turned into fluid water, into a tree with towering branches. I suppose he tried to climb it. But we held stiffly onto him with enduring spirit. I'm trying to get...


Okay, so it's like proteus. So the desire, there's more depth in this than one might think. The desire changes shape, changes form. And it's surprising that Clement puts such a negative interpretation on these portions of the soul. Because he's so... Actually, if you extend this or broaden this a little bit, These are precisely the faculties of the soul that he's very much concerned with in the way that he writes. In other words, the imagination and so on are very much connected with these faculties. And the protean, desiring faculties he's talking about, in a way, is at the bottom of a lot of Clement's own music, of the proaic dimension of the brain, of his own heart. He's playing off of a tradition that was divided from the beginning. Plato, on one hand, does a real similar thing of putting down desires,


especially the desires of the flesh, and trying to get away from the internal. But then, I think what he resolves in the dialogue that I think is closest to the sense that there's division is that the desire to see is something that, at its lowest level, isn't due to sense. But it is also the same principle that draws man towards the divine, in the highest form, dreams and virtues. But it's the same thing where, all the way along the line, we define Plato's philosophy as the subject of his divine understanding of it. But the division that's there in Plato, in a lot of the other dialogues, is completely negative. Usually there's an enormous division between the intellect and everything else, it seems, which the progress got around very often. Supposing it resolves in some form, it has to be expressed.


Because you can, in a way, see also a Trinitarian image of God in this psychological pattern. Between reason, on one side, and... Instead of being just anger, this can also be a rational factor. This can be a cathartic factor. So this can be rational in a way, and this can be the movement of trust in man. But there's something else here, which is that, if you look at the body of man, if you look at the body of man, if you examine the spirit of man, you'll find that it's a perfect circle. It's Saint Augustine who goes in greatest length into the divine image


in this sort of way, in the psychological way, the way in which the soul of the human person is an image of God, and then the way in which God relates to it and dwells in it, and manifests himself in it, in his book, Kishine Tatva. He tries almost every possible relation to it. Okay, he talks about these escapades of protease and desire, but that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up, he has the form which is of the Word, he is made like to God, he is beautiful, he does not ornament himself, he is his beauty, the true beauty, for it is God. Now, that's strong. He has the form which is of the Word. Now, I think this is precisely theological. It's right on what he's saying. After a lot of other arbitrary options, he hits the bull's eye.


And that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus then rightly said, men are gods and gods are men. A letter that tells us that, particularly, is a Heraclitus statement. For the Word himself is the manifest mystery, God in man and man God. The Word himself. Let's see how that is in the original, because that's an important statement. It's the incarnation, in other words. Here's the word in French, please. Heraclitus then is right to say, the gods are men and the men are gods, for it is, in fact, the same Logos. Manifest mystery. God is in man and man is God. And the mediator accomplishes the will of the Father. For the Logos, common to the one and to the other, is mediated.


At one time, the Son of God and the Savior of men, servant of God and our pedagogue. So, it's the central role of the Logos. That's the answer, isn't it? And then he says, the flesh being the slave, the servant, according to the testimony of Paul himself. Would it be reasonable to adorn the servant as a seductress? So, he quotes St. Paul. He emptied himself into the form of a slave. Took a physical form. calling the outward man servant, previous to the Lord becoming a servant in his own flesh. Did the compassionate God himself set the flesh free, and releasing it from destruction and from bitter and deadly bondage, endowed it with incorruptibility, arraying the flesh in this, immortality. So, chastity and immortality are the beauty of the flesh, of the body. And those, somehow, are very much related to one another.


As you find out. Then there's another beauty of the human person, and that is love. Adaptability. And here, 1 Corinthians 13 is behind it. There's one curious place, however, where he misquotes 1 Corinthians 13. Love suffers long in its time. It does not envy. It does not want itself. It's not fucked up. And then he adds a different one so far. It does not behave itself consumer. Seeks not what is not her own. Well, St. Paul says, seeks not her own. Seeking her own will, seeking her own good, seeking her own thing. But here he says, seeking not what is not her own. I don't know whether there's a variant here. Yeah, that's right. Seeks not what is not her own. So, now, or there is.


It's the same, in effect. It's the same thing. That's St. Paul. For truth calls that its own which belongs to it. See, the idea here, which is not supported by that particular line of St. Paul, is that you don't have to borrow a beauty that's not your own. There suffices that which is your own, which is the Word, which is your soul. Which is God in you. The lover finally seeks what is not its own. It adds something to itself, another from God. Being apart from God in the Word and in life. Okay, now there we have a basic idea of the inhabitation of the Logos in the human person and expressing itself here in beauty. Very important from its own scheme and also in our tradition.


The beauty aspect just gets forgotten in the traditional realm, but the inhabitation of the Word does not. There are several things in here that we want to mention, but there's another towards the end of it. Any questions about that before we go on to our last question? From where is it stated? I'd like to go to St. Paul. In the first man, he's made like a God. He's a beauty. A man becomes God. Yes. In other words, in the Word.


Divinization. Deification. Deification. That's the theology we do for it. God became man so that man can become God. Yeah, and it's just as important as... Yep. I don't know what to ask you. I mean, in the essence of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as they are God, or just in the sense that we have their qualities. By participation. With the very intensity and density and truth of the Incarnation itself, which has become man. To the extent that God has become man, he becomes God. The measure of our deification is the measure of the truth of the Incarnation. Each of the... This is potential, isn't it?


It's given to us in our baptism, but it has to be realized. That's the power of the Incarnation, probably. There's a power in the baptism. Can we verify it in the baptism? And the fact that we're in the Son of God, the fact that we're in the Son of God, that's the central point of the mysticism. To be born in the Son of God is to be born Christ. And to be in the body of Christ is to be Christ. We don't seem that way. Why did we... Why did we serve as Christians? Ah, okay. Because that would be to say something else, wouldn't it? It would be to imply something else. You could say that she's a goddess, okay?


Insofar as you can say that the human person is a god, you can say that Mary is a goddess. But notice that when you do that, you're introducing something which has a meaning already outside of Christianity and tends to put her as her own source of God outside of the Christian economy, okay? Because she is a goddess. In the same sense that the human person becomes God, in Christ, Mary is a goddess. As is every woman who is deified, okay? So her position is no different from that of every woman in that basic sense, okay? And then one could say something else, even though every woman is not Mother of Christ in the same way. But insofar as every human being has a capacity and a gift of deification and baptism in Christ, that's true of every woman of this marriage. But then, see, that brings in kind of ambiguities


and hesitations for other reasons. That word would put it in a way. And it's always been a very, what do you call it, sinister and avoided word for the Jewish tradition and for the Christian tradition, the word goddess. Isn't there a book called The Hebrew Goddess which shows a feminine divinity creeping in in the Jewish tradition? Later on in the Kabbalah tradition. He's mostly talking about that. He even makes a connection with Hinduism and suggests that there's been some kind of influence. He should kind of... And then there's other, a number of feminine figures in the Kabbalah, some of which are semi-divine or divine and some of which are kind of sinister. It seems like the power of the Mary God is one of those sort of people that introduces


a basic wisdom of how the Holy Spirit underpins the catechisms of unity that is taken to kind of all encompassing in some sense that brings everything into itself. Hearing that the Hebrew Goddess is a diverse... Yeah, setting up alongside, okay? Also, in our traditions, calling Mary a goddess would correspond to a certain way of devotion in a rather unfortunate way, okay? In other words, it would tend to stop short the devotion that should go to God by allowing it to terminate in Mary as it often does in the latter part anyway, okay? Because there's a lot of devotion in the Roman Catholic Church which is Marian and doesn't really sufficiently recognize God or Christ beyond or within Mary, okay? And so that would be a fuller scope today, don't you think? Yeah. That's right.


And also because immediately it centers one in God and in Christ, I think that expression. It has its work in precaution. Oh, yes. You mean in the... Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's clear. But this being a mystery, an essential mystery, it's very difficult to draw the boundary line where our individualism, our individuality stops and our deification begins. Nevertheless, we can state quite clearly the two poles, just as we can for the Incarnation. That Jesus is God, that Jesus is man. We can say those two poles. But how to distinguish His divinity from His humanity, that's something we can't do. We can't assimilate His divinity. Okay.


Let's go on to the end. The conclusion of Book 3 of the Pedagogy, where, as you can expect, Clement winds up quite a bit of scheme in order to conclude. Chapter 12, page 294, at the bottom. The bottom of the right-hand column, where he explains this transition that he's making, he says, It's time for me to cease from my instruction as if we were the pedagogues, and for you to listen to the teacher. And the teacher, remember, is the didaskalos, and it's been the pedagogue that's led you up to now. And now he's ending his book and he's going to pass it on to the teacher. First it was the protreptikos, the persuader,


then it was the instructor, the pedagogue, and now it's going to be the teacher, the didaskalos. And that's the kind of thing that you find in a stromatoid, and that's concerned with the immediate interpretation of his pictures. Although sometimes the stromatoid is kind of disappointing because you don't find that much exegesis of the mystery in the scriptures as you did in the ornates. He's rather more interested in the Gnostic himself than he is in the mystery. Page 294, at the very bottom of the right-hand column. Okay, oh goodness, it's quite a ways in. Chapter 12, there's a number on here. Yeah, it's better to go to the end and start back. You see that M there? And then, probably about three pages. Oh, it's number 97. You got it? Number 97? In parentheses. It's time for me to cease from my instruction and for you to listen to the teacher.


And so he's sending it out to the other book. To noble purpose has the church sung, I think we, will you read us that Isaiah from that translation? It's messed up. Yeah, go ahead. No, better go down, better go down further. I'll find it. I'll find it. This part here, as I read it, after we've been trained by a sample of cases, he will take us and teach us the word of God, to the churches, to the schools, to the priors, to the ones, and to the teachers. It's noble desire that has the noble purpose


is excellent wisdom for holiness and love. Okay, you see how different it is from the earlier translation. Would you read that over again, because it's kind of important. After we've been trained by a sample of cases, he will take us and teach us the word of God, to the churches, to the schools, to the priors, to the ones, and to the teachers. It's noble desire that has the noble purpose is excellent wisdom for holiness and love. Note that what he's going to do is teach you, he's going to put you in direct contact with the scripture now, after you've gone through the school with it. And what he's interested in is your possessing wisdom. And then another passage down below, where he begins to take us into the initiative area. And this is, as it were, the word speaking. O divine works, O divine commands, let this water undulate within it. Do you want to read that part as a Vatican?


It's like that. O divine works, O divine commands, let the water undulate within itself. For the workings of God, and the commands of God, this is water, like the way it's classified. This is fire, like the way it's expanded in the atmosphere. See, the four elements of the old cosmology method, they're gone. See, this is, remember Heranaeus in the forming of man, everything made out of the four elements, he's starting, resuming, going back to the original creation. But the whole process, you see, is that creation, as in man. Okay. And you could go on a little bit. I have the primordial substance. I will dwell in this creature of mine. You can recognize it. The higher one, you can discern it.


You see, it's pretty powerful. It's strong poetry. The inhabitation of the word who dwells in what he has made. I don't remember Heranaeus talking exactly that language. Remember, Heranaeus didn't like the language of interiority or indwelling, inhabitation. Such is the word, such is the instructor, the creator of the world and of man. And then there's a prayer to the pedagogue, to the instructor, as if saying good farewell to them. And then finally a hymn. And could you read that hymn for us? It's in different form. It's in verse form, so it's easy to pick up. You just read it slowly for us. Yeah. This is called, a hymn, the canticle of the spirit of childhood. The editor here has turned it that. So notice how important the notion of the child is,


which we found dominating this pedagogue. Okay. It's not strange. It's very dense in the Greek, so it's impossible to translate those things. There are verses of about three words, which have been put together, very, cemented together, very tightly, so naturally it's hard to translate. Sometimes, in fact, sometimes only two words and sometimes three. When simple children gathered up, they would sing fully, they would sing truthfully, with lips in the skin, revealing their Christ and God. O thou King of saints, Word of Father on high, Thou Governor of all things, Ruler and Bearer of all things,


Lord for all ages, Source of endless joy, Jesus, only Savior of man, Christ, Thou Shepherd, Thou Husband, Thou Brother, Thou Bridegroom, All-Having, Heavenly King of all nations, Fisher of men, Gone safely in the ocean of sin, Snaring the spotless life, Fish of the sea, Of the sea of gospel, Lord God of shepherds, Guidest of children, Thine are the sheep, Saviour and King. The footsteps of Christ, Our Patriarch and Heavenly, Of ages unbounded, Everlasting Word, Light of eternity, Well-spreader person, Who virtually instills in hearts, Offering God the gift of their brethren, O Jesus, our Father, Milk of the bride, Given of heaven.


Remember the milk of the word, back in chapter 6. Given of heaven, Crest from sweet breasts, Gifts of thy wisdom, These thy little ones, Brought to the earth, In infancy's notes, Filling their souls With spiritual singing From the breasts of the Lord. That recalls also the post-chapter of the Song of Songs, which is surprising. That's a very important passage in the same manner. Remember, the word is the bridegroom. Curiously, the word is the mother at the same time. Let us all sing to Christ our King, Songs of sweetness, Hymns of high purity, How their greatness Repeats in the air. Let us praise Christ's name So mighty a child. A mighty child. We're the children, and Christ is the child. So, see how the image of Christ leaps from one point to another.


For us born of Christ, Cannot be risen By the voice of peace. We, undefiled, Will call to God. And that's the conclusion of the book. Some people have disputed that that poem was written by Kahneman, but it certainly sounds like him, doesn't it? Especially the last part. It relates to so much that's elsewhere in this book. I should make a copy of that book to put with the enlargement machines. Any questions or comments before we go on? I think it would be worth a rather detailed study of the poem to attack the beat of C.P.E. Does it qualify as English? This one here? He's got two different translations. One is literal, and the other is verse. And the verse translation is of a certain English style


that's kind of kind of crazy. I wasn't following all along with it. And then he's got a prose translation which I think what happens is, you see, he gives a literal translation, but sometimes without catching the reasons that are there in any of those place of words and suffrage. A dewy spirit filled from fair reasons bliss distilled. You see, that's a photograph, but you can't really hear what he's saying here. So that one's better than this. Okay, that's it for the pedagogue. Next time I'd like to go on with the straw man. I'll try to...


I don't know how long I'll spend on that. Not too long, I think. And then I'll try to start an article. Before I go away. Sometime in the summer. Very good to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen.