Against Nathan Porter: Examining the Unique Lexical Choice in Ep.366

In previous posts, I have addressed potential anachronisms in Pseudo-Basil Epistle 366, arguing that its ideas are consistent with Clementine authorship. Nathan Porter's suggestion that the letter might have been written by Evagrius of Pontus or one of his followers introduces what I term a reverse anachronism—a lexical peculiarity that militates against a later dating.

The Peculiar Lexical Choice: μισγεσθαι

Ep.366 contains the phrase: και Θεω μισγεσθαι ποιει (and it causes us to be mixed with God). The term μισγεσθαι is the present middle-passive infinitive of μισγω, an Ionic form commonly found in Homer and Herodotus but largely defunct in later Greek usage. The more common forms are μιγνυμι or μιγω, with much later variants such as σμιγνυω and σμιγω. These forms encompass meanings ranging from mixing substances to social and sexual intercourse.

Limited Patristic Usage

In patristic literature, the use of μισγω/μισγεσθαι is virtually nonexistent in an author's own voice. The few exceptions are primarily scriptural, such as:

• Isaiah 1.22: Mixing wine with water.
• Hosea 4.2: Blood mixed with blood.

However, a comprehensive review of lexica and indices reveals that μισγω/μισγεσθαι is not typically employed by patristic authors independently. The lone exception appears to be Clement of Alexandria.

Clement's Usage

At Stromateis 1.16.74, Clement lists positive innovations by the Egyptians, integrating phrases from Herodotus 2.64.1: "..prohibited intercourse [μισγεσθαι] with women in the temples, and enacted that no one should enter the temples from a woman without bathing."

Here, Clement de-Ionicizes the surrounding phrases but retains the Ionic μισγεσθαι. This choice is indicative of Clement's style, showcasing his preference for archaisms.

Clement's Love for Archaisms

Clement's writing style frequently employs archaisms, which were a hallmark of cultured literary expression in his time. Lucian mocked this style, yet Clement embraced it fully. This penchant for archaism supports the likelihood that Clement himself authored the passage in Ep.366, given the Ionic form's rarity and his known linguistic preferences.

Positive Case for Clementine Authorship

To establish a positive case for Clement using μισγεσθαι in Ep.366, we must consider how the term aligns with his broader verbal usage and ideas.

1. Clement’s Preference for Archaisms: Clement's works are replete with archaisms, enhancing the literary and philosophical weight of his writing. Strom. 3.2.10 and 1.16.74 illustrate his varying use of μιγνυσθαι and μισγεσθαι, depending on context and thematic emphasis.

2. Philosophical and Theological Consistency: The idea of mixing with God reflects Clement’s theological vision of the soul's union with the divine, mirroring the hierarchical relationship between flesh, spirit, and God:

   • Strom. 4.23.149: "In this way, it is possible for the gnostic already to have become {a} god."
   • Strom. 7.16.101: "He is fully perfected after the likeness of his Teacher and thus becomes a god while still walking about in the flesh."

3. Qualified Descriptions: Clement often qualifies his statements to balance human aspiration with divine transcendence, consistent with the nuanced assertion "God is εγκρατεια" in Ep.366.

Conclusion

The presence of the Ionic μισγεσθαι in Ep.366, coupled with Clement’s established use of archaisms and nuanced theological expressions, strongly supports the letter's Clementine authorship. Porter's alternative attribution to Evagrius of Pontus or his followers fails to account for this lexical peculiarity, making Clement’s authorship not only possible but probable. The consistent thematic and lexical patterns across Clement's work reinforce this conclusion, suggesting that Ep.366 is a genuine product of his pen.