Against Nathan Porter: Questioning the Integrity of Basil's Letters and the Plausibility of Reassignment

Nathan Porter's dismissal of Epistle 366 as a genuine letter of Clement and his insistence on its Valentinian nature raises broader questions about the authenticity and authorship of ancient texts. While Porter focuses on the theological discrepancies, it is essential to consider the historical and methodological context of textual transmission and forgery, particularly within the corpus of Basil's letters.

The Issue of Forgery in Basil's Letters

The corpus of Basil's letters is fraught with both definite and suspected forgeries. Scholars have long acknowledged that many letters attributed to Basil, especially those exchanged with Libanius, the prominent pagan sophist, are likely spurious. This collection includes 26 letters, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that most, if not all, are inauthentic.

The Case of Reassigned Letters

Within this collection, there are four letters that stand out not merely as fabricated texts but as deliberate falsifications. These examples are particularly relevant when considering the methodological question of whether a known letter from a known author could be reassigned to another figure:

1. Letter 9: This letter is actually the first paragraph of a letter from Libanius to the emperor Julian, in which Libanius praises Julian's rhetorical skills. By altering the address to Basil, the forger shifts the praise from a major adversary of Christianity to one of its key proponents.

2. Letter 8: This letter, purportedly from Basil to Libanius, is lifted directly from Gregory of Nyssa's Letter 28.1-3, originally addressed to an unknown recipient.

3. Letters 13 and 14: These letters are abbreviated versions of Gregory of Nyssa's Letters 26 and 27, originally an exchange between Gregory and the sophist Stagirius.

The blatant reassignment of letters from notable contemporaries such as Gregory of Nyssa to Basil is far more audacious than the hypothetical repurposing of a piece by a past master like Clement. Such practices underscore the fluidity and the lack of stringent authorial integrity in the transmission of ancient texts. This context makes the proposed reassignment of Clement's work in Epistle 366 more plausible, rather than less.

Methodological Implications

Porter's critique hinges on the perceived improbability of a known letter by Clement being shamelessly reassigned to Basil. However, historical evidence of similar practices suggests that this was not only possible but relatively common in antiquity. The reattribution of texts was a recognized method of enhancing the authority and prestige of the new recipient or of aligning the text with contemporary theological or ideological agendas.

Avenues for Further Research

If there is a prima facie case for Epistle 366 being a repurposed letter of Clement, a fruitful avenue for research would be to re-examine the corpus of Basil's letters for other potential Clementine texts. This task would involve a meticulous comparison of linguistic styles, theological themes, and historical contexts to identify additional misattributions.

Conclusion

Porter's skepticism about the reattribution of Epistle 366 is understandable but overlooks the broader historical context of textual transmission and forgery. The corpus of Basil's letters provides compelling examples of such practices, challenging the assumption that reassignment of known letters was unlikely. Therefore, the hypothesis that Epistle 366 may be a repurposed Clementine letter deserves serious consideration and further scholarly investigation.