Nathan Porter’s Valentinian Interpretation of Epistle 366: A Critical Examination

In his analysis of Pseudo-Basil's Epistle 366, Nathan Porter employs a diverse array of sources to suggest a Valentinian interpretation of the letter, which he argues diverges significantly from Clement of Alexandria's established theological framework. This eclectic approach has been compared to the outdated method of applying a generic "Gnostic" template to various texts. One particularly contentious aspect of Porter’s interpretation is his translation of the term χαρις (grace) in the letter as a reference to a Valentinian Aeon, potentially God's consort, which contrasts with its conventional use by Clement.

Misinterpretation of Valentinian Concepts

Porter acknowledges that his interpretation of χαρις as a Valentinian Aeon does not align with Clement’s usage in Stromateis, attributing this to a potential misunderstanding of Valentinus’s teachings. This critical self-awareness highlights a fundamental issue: the risk of imposing anachronistic or sectarian readings on texts without substantial evidence from the primary author.

Reassessing the Clementine Authorship

To evaluate the possibility of Clement himself authoring Epistle 366, it is essential to consider the following points:

1. Theological Consistency: If Porter’s arguments effectively demonstrate that the letter is the source for Stromateis 3.7.59, and if the language used is convincingly Clementine, then the primary barrier to Clementine authorship is the theological content regarding the spiritual body and its relation to εγκρατεια (self-mastery).

2. The Soul’s Divine Origin: For Clement, the soul is part of a divine chain of being, as expressed in Stromateis 4.26.167 and 5.14.94. The soul’s heavenly origin and its kinship with God underscore Clement’s view of human nature as inherently divine and capable of spiritual ascent.

3. The Role of Εγκρατεια: Clement views εγκρατεια not only as a virtue but as a divine power and grace (δυναμις και θεια χαρις) essential for spiritual development. This interconnectedness of virtues, described in Stromateis 2.18.80 and 3.1.4, aligns with the notion that εγκρατεια is both a human endeavor and a divine gift.

4. **Valentinian Quotations in Stromateis: Clement’s use of Valentinian texts varies in tone—neutral, hostile, or positive. For example, he critically quotes a Valentinus homily in Stromateis 4.13.89 and favorably cites Peri Philon in Stromateis 6.6.52 to support his arguments. This selective citation method mirrors his approach to pagan authors like Plato.

5. Self-Referencing: Clement frequently repurposes his own material across different contexts, often modifying its meaning to suit new arguments. This practice suggests that apparent “recycling” within Clement’s works should first be attributed to him before considering other sources.

Conclusion: Harmonizing Epistle 366 with Clementine Theology

If the theological content of Epistle 366 can be shown to align with Clement’s views on the spiritual body and εγκρατεια, there is no need to seek Valentinian influences. Instead, recognizing the letter as Clementine can help consolidate our understanding of his theological and philosophical positions. This approach avoids the pitfalls of overextending sectarian readings and respects the complexity of early Christian thought.

In conclusion, while Porter’s eclectic method provides an interesting perspective, a thorough examination reveals that Epistle 366 can be congruently interpreted within Clement’s theological framework. This removes the need for speculative Valentinian attributions and reinforces the integrity of Clement’s authorship and his nuanced engagement with various sources.