Against Nathan Porter: Reassessing the Authorship and Context of Epistle 366

Nathan Porter's dismissal of Pseudo-Basil Epistle 366 as a genuine letter of Clement and his insistence on its Valentinian nature overlook critical aspects of textual transmission and contextual relevance. While Porter asserts that the letter, attributed to Basil, is a product of later theological controversies, there is a strong case to be made that Epistle 366 could be a 'falsification' rather than a straightforward forgery. In the terms used by Lieve Van Hoof, this would mean that an existing text was repurposed because its contents became relevant to later debates.

Understanding Falsification vs. Forgery

In the realm of ancient texts, a forgery involves creating a false document with the intent to deceive, while a falsification involves adapting an existing document to serve a new purpose or context. This distinction is crucial when analyzing Epistle 366. The letter, in its current form with its attribution to Basil, reflects the theological and ecclesiastical concerns of the 5th or 6th centuries. However, this does not preclude the possibility that its core content originated from an earlier period and was later adapted to address contemporary issues.

Historical Analogy: Zechariah 4:2-3 as a Christian Oracle

To illustrate this point, we can look at the historical use of Zechariah 4:2-3 in Christian interpretation. This text was always available but underwent significant re-interpretation to address evolving theological needs:

1. Origen (3rd Century): In his "Commentary on the Song of Songs," Origen uses Zechariah 4:2-3 as a minor illustration, interpreting the olive trees as representing the Only-Begotten and the Holy Spirit. This interpretation was relatively straightforward and did not assign significant theological weight to the imagery.

2. Methodius (Late 3rd Century): Methodius, in his "Symposium," expands on Origen's interpretation, focusing more on the olive trees as symbols of Christ and the Spirit, emphasizing their role in supplying spiritual knowledge.

3. Cyril of Alexandria (5th Century): By the time of Cyril, the focus shifts to the lampstand itself, which he interprets as a symbol of the Church with Christ as the torch. This reflects a growing emphasis on ecclesiology and Christology.

4. Proclus of Constantinople (5th Century): Proclus takes this further by reinterpreting the lampstand as a symbol of the Virgin Mary, aligning with the increasing veneration of Mary and her role in the Church. This re-interpretation became a staple in Eastern Christian homiletics and iconography.

In each case, the text of Zechariah 4:2-3 remained the same, but its interpretation evolved to meet new theological and ecclesiastical needs. This process did not involve forgery but rather the repurposing of an existing text to make it relevant to contemporary issues.

Applying This to Epistle 366

Similarly, Epistle 366 could be viewed as a text that was originally written by Clement or another early Christian figure and later adapted to reflect the concerns of Basil's time. The following points support this hypothesis:

1. Thematic Consistency: The themes and theological concepts in Epistle 366, such as the divine inability to process food and the emphasis on εγκρατεια (self-mastery), align well with Clementine thought. This suggests that the core content could genuinely originate from Clement, even if it was later modified.

2. Historical Precedent: As seen with the use of Zechariah, there is historical precedent for reinterpreting and repurposing existing texts to address new theological contexts. This practice was not uncommon and was a way to bridge past teachings with present needs.

3. Intertextual Evidence: The use of language and concepts in Epistle 366 shows significant overlap with Clement's known works. This intertextual evidence strengthens the argument that the letter could be a repurposed Clementine text rather than an outright forgery.

Conclusion

Porter's argument against the authenticity of Epistle 366 overlooks the historical and methodological context of textual transmission. The distinction between forgery and falsification is critical in this discussion. Historical precedents, such as the evolving interpretation of Zechariah 4:2-3, demonstrate that ancient texts were often repurposed to meet new theological needs. This supports the possibility that Epistle 366, attributed to Basil, may indeed be a repurposed letter originally written by Clement. Further research into other suspected forgeries in Basil's corpus could provide additional evidence to support this hypothesis.