Against Nathan Porter: Reevaluating Epistle 366 in Light of Clementine Theology
Reconsidering the Authenticity and Attribution of Epistle 366
Certainly, Epistle 366, as it currently stands with its attribution to Basil and its relevance to 5th and 6th-century theological debates, appears to be a later production. However, considering it as a 'falsification' rather than a straightforward forgery opens up the possibility that it was originally a text by Clement, later adapted due to its newfound relevance.
Intertextuality and Clement's Recycling of His Own Material
Clement of Alexandria was known for his habit of recycling his own material, as evidenced throughout the Stromateis. This practice suggests that what appears in Epistle 366 could very well be Clement's own words, repurposed by a later editor.
Nathan Porter argues that Clement's understanding of εγκρατεια does not support the claims made in Epistle 366. He cites Stromateis 2.18.81.1 where Clement states that God, being without need and passion, is not properly called εγκρατες (continent). This, Porter suggests, is a rebuttal to the letter's claim that "God is εγκρατεια." However, this interpretation fails to consider Clement's broader theological framework.
Clement's Dynamic Concept of εγκρατεια
For Clement, εγκρατεια is both a divine attribute and a gift bestowed upon humans as part of the divine chain of being. It is a dynamic virtue encompassing both a process and an end state, achievable in this life:
- Foundation of Knowledge and Virtue: Clement describes εγκρατεια as foundational to knowledge and virtue, an approach to perfection. He writes, "Such εγκρατεια is the foundation [θεμελιος] of knowledge and an impulse [ορμη] to perfection" (Strom. 7.12.70).
- Divine Law and Training: The divine law trains man to εγκρατεια, laying it as the foundation of virtues (Strom. 2.20.105).
Clement's gnostic achieves a fixed state of εγκρατεια through a process, ultimately mimicking the divine state. This involves a transformation to a state of passionlessness, akin to God's own impassibility:
- Achieving Impassibility: The gnostic, by attaining to the likeness of God, achieves a state of impassibility (απαθεια). Clement notes, "He is compelled to become like his Teacher in impassibility" (Strom. 6.9.72).
The Role of Jesus as the Exemplar of εγκρατεια
Clement's view of Jesus as the perfect example of εγκρατεια further aligns with the claims of Epistle 366. Jesus, according to Clement, demonstrated the ultimate form of εγκρατεια, which humans should strive to emulate:
- Jesus' Divine Inability: Clement explains that Jesus' body, maintained by a holy power, did not need food for sustenance but ate to prevent misconceptions among his followers. This aligns with the letter's portrayal of Jesus' physical lightness and divine εγκρατεια (Strom. 6.9.71).
Conclusion
Porter's conclusion that Clement rebuts the notion of divine εγκρατεια is unconvincing when viewed in the context of Clement's broader theological framework. Clement's writings support the idea that εγκρατεια is both a divine attribute and a human goal, achievable through divine grace and disciplined practice. The supposed contradiction in Stromateis 2.18.81.1 is resolved when considering Clement's nuanced differentiation between human and divine εγκρατεια and the process of achieving impassibility.
In light of this, Epistle 366 should be reevaluated as a potential Clementine text, later adapted for its theological relevance. This perspective not only aligns with Clement's known habits of self-recycling but also supports a more coherent understanding of his theology. Therefore, dismissing the letter as purely Valentinian overlooks the rich complexity of Clement's thought and his influence on later Christian writers.
Comments
Post a Comment