Unraveling the Mystery: A Second Letter of Clement of Alexandria?

The academic exploration of early Christian texts often leads to remarkable discoveries and intriguing debates. One such debate centers on a letter traditionally attributed to Basil of Caesarea but which, upon closer examination, appears to have strong ties to Clement of Alexandria. This potential second letter from Clement, preserved in monastic collections, challenges previous attributions and invites us to reconsider the historical and theological contexts of these writings.

The Letter in Question

The letter in question begins with the phrase "Καλῶς ποιεῖς" ("You do well"), a common epistolary greeting. This phrase also appears in Clement's Letter to Theodore, prompting speculation about its authorship. Here’s a glimpse of the content:

"You do well to delineate straightforward definitions for us, so that we may know not only continence, but also its fruit. Its fruit, then, is partaking of God. For incorruption is a sharing in God, just as corruption is partaking of the world."

This letter, attributed to Basil in various manuscripts, is found in multiple collections, including one at Mar Saba. Notably, the letter focuses on themes of continence and spiritual fruit, aligning closely with Clementine theology.

A Case for Clementine Authorship

There are several compelling reasons to consider this letter as a work of Clement of Alexandria rather than Basil or Valentinus:

1. Thematic Consistency:

   • The letter's themes of continence, incorruption, and the fruits of a disciplined life are central to Clement’s known writings. Clement frequently explores these virtues in his works, emphasizing their spiritual significance.

2. Linguistic Parallels:

   • The opening phrase "Καλῶς ποιεῖς" and the structure of the letter bear a striking resemblance to Clement’s Letter to Theodore. This suggests a stylistic continuity that supports Clementine authorship.

3. Historical Context:

   • If this letter is indeed by Clement, it provides evidence that Clement wrote letters preserved in monastic settings, which were later added to collections of other Patristic writers. This aligns with the broader historical context of how early Christian writings were transmitted and preserved.

4. Misattribution Issues:

   • The letter has been previously misattributed to Basil. Scholars like W. Völker have pointed out that the content of the letter does not align with Basil’s known works but rather borrows heavily from Clement’s Stromata. This patchwork of Clementine material further supports the idea that the letter is Clement’s work.

Addressing Porter and Goodacre

Geoffrey Dunn’s article, influenced by Mark Goodacre, argues for a Valentinian origin of the letter, citing its theological alignment with Valentinian themes. However, this perspective may be overly influenced by Goodacre’s reluctance to acknowledge the survival of a Clementine letter through monastic transmission.

1. Theological Overlap:

   • While there are Valentinian elements in the letter, it is not uncommon for early Christian writers, including Clement, to engage with and repurpose theological ideas from different traditions. This does not necessarily indicate Valentinian authorship.

2. Monastic Transmission:

   • The preservation of this letter at Mar Saba and its inclusion in various collections suggest a monastic context for its transmission. If a letter of Clement survived from antiquity, it would support the idea that Clement’s writings were valued and preserved by monastic communities.

Implications for Understanding the Carpocratians

The letter also sheds light on the identity of the Carpocratians, a group often mentioned in Patristic writings. The name "Carpocrates" has traditionally been understood as referring to a historical figure. However, the letter suggests that "Carpocratians" might refer to Alexandrian monks practicing encratism (strict self-control and abstinence).

1. No Historical Carpocrates:

   • The letter implies that "Carpocratians" was a term for ascetic monks rather than followers of a single founder named Carpocrates. This aligns with the idea that many Patristic reports on heresies were based on third or fourth-hand information and often contained exaggerations or misunderstandings.

2. Alignment with Clementine Theology:

   • Clement’s discussions of encratism and the spiritual fruits of continence provide context for understanding why these monks might be labeled as "Carpocratians." The letter thus helps clarify the historical and theological landscape of early Alexandrian Christianity.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Clementine Authorship

Reevaluating the authorship of this letter invites us to consider the broader implications for the study of early Christian texts. The strong thematic and linguistic parallels with Clement’s known writings, coupled with the historical context of monastic transmission, make a compelling case for attributing this letter to Clement of Alexandria.

If this letter is indeed by Clement, it enriches our understanding of his theological contributions and the ways in which his writings were preserved and valued by early Christian communities. This discovery also underscores the importance of critical scholarship in unraveling the complex history of early Christian literature. As we continue to explore these texts, we gain deeper insights into the diverse and dynamic world of early Christianity.