Against Nathan Porter: A Nuanced Understanding of Celestial Hierarchy and Virtues in Clementine Theology

Nathan Porter's interpretation of Epistle 366, where he suggests a Valentinian influence rather than a Clementine origin, overlooks critical nuances in Clement of Alexandria's writings. Clement's distinction between the divine nature of God and the Logos, and the second-order nature of angels and divinized humans, fundamentally shapes his views on virtues like εγκρατεια (self-control) and απαθεια (impassibility). Understanding this hierarchy and the gradations within it is essential to appreciate the subtleties of Clement's thought and the possible Clementine authorship of Epistle 366.

Distinction Between Divine and Celestial Beings

Clement is explicit in differentiating between the divine nature of God and the virtues of angels and divinized humans. While humans and angels can aspire to divine virtues, these virtues manifest at different degrees depending on the subject:

"But he that is joined to the Lord in spirit becomes a spiritual body by a different kind of conjunction. Such a one is wholly a son, a holy man, passionless [απαθης], gnostic, perfect, formed by the teaching of the Lord... living in the habit of passionlessness [εν τη εξει της απαθειας]. For as we call a physician perfect, and a philosopher perfect, so also, in my view, do we call a gnostic perfect. But not one of these perfections, to whatever height it may attain, is taken as the likeness of God. For we do not say as the Stoics do most impiously, that virtue in man and God is the same." (Stromateis 7.14.88)

Here, Clement clearly states that while the gnostic can achieve a form of perfection and passionlessness, it is fundamentally different from the divine nature of God. The virtues in humans and angels, though significant, are a second-order reality compared to the divine virtues of God and the Logos.

The Fall of the Angels and Human Frailty

Clement uses the example of the fall of the angels to illustrate that even in the celestial realm, there can be a failure of εγκρατεια due to lack of effort or focus:

"The angels fell due to lack of effort or focus [ραθυμιας]." (Stromateis 3.7.59, 7.7.46)

This introduces an element of nuance; there remains a role for conscious effort in maintaining virtues, even in what is ideally a fixed state. For humans aspiring to divine virtues, this means there is always the potential for failure, emphasizing the importance of continuous discipline and vigilance.

The Role of Effort and Discipline in Achieving Virtues

Clement acknowledges that while divine virtues are a gift, achieving and maintaining them requires human effort and discipline:

"He will pray too that he may never fall away from virtue, cooperating to the best of his power that he may end his life without a fall. To him who has been trained here below to the highest point of knowledge, and the supreme elevation of a perfect man... In him, then, who has rendered his virtue permanent [αναποβλητον] by discipline based on knowledge, habit is changed into nature [φυσιουται η εξις]; and in such a one his knowledge becomes permanent [αναποβλητος], like weight in a stone." (Stromateis 7.7.46)

This passage highlights that even the highest gnostic must strive continuously to maintain virtue. The process of achieving divine virtues involves transforming habits into an almost natural state, but this transformation is not without its challenges and requires ongoing effort.

The Divine and the Divine-like: Degrees of Virtue

Clement's writings make it clear that while humans can aspire to divine-like virtues, these virtues are inherently different in degree from those of God and the Logos. This differentiation is crucial in understanding his theological framework:

"The perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to 'a perfect man', according to the image of the Lord. And the likeness [ομοιωσις] is not, as some imagine, that of the human form; for this consideration is impious. Nor is the likeness to the First Cause that which consists in virtue. For this utterance is also impious, being that of those who have imagined that virtue in man and in the sovereign God is the same." (Stromateis 6.14.114)

Clement's caution against equating human virtues with those of God reinforces his belief in the hierarchical structure of celestial beings and their attributes. This perspective is essential for interpreting any claims about divine εγκρατεια in Epistle 366.

Conclusion

Nathan Porter's interpretation that Clement's views on εγκρατεια contradict those in Epistle 366 fails to account for the nuanced distinction Clement makes between the divine virtues of God and the virtues attainable by humans and angels. Clement's theology acknowledges the hierarchical nature of these virtues and emphasizes the continuous effort required to achieve and maintain them. Recognizing this distinction is crucial for a more accurate understanding of Clementine thought and the possible Clementine authorship of Epistle 366.

By considering the broader context of Clement's writings, we can appreciate the consistency in his views on εγκρατεια and the divine nature, supporting the notion that Epistle 366 could indeed be a genuine piece of Clement's theological legacy, later adapted to address contemporary issues.