Unveiling Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria

The intricate world of early Christian literature is full of surprising discoveries and ongoing debates. One such debate centers on a letter traditionally attributed to Basil of Caesarea but which might actually be a second letter from Clement of Alexandria. This letter, preserved in various monastic collections and found as a standalone document at Mar Saba, has stirred significant academic interest and speculation.

The Epistle and Its Discovery

In 1845, Cardinal Angelo Mai published an epistle from an ancient Venetian codex (61, f. 324), which he attributed to the great Basilius. Mai's transcription of the letter, addressed to a monk named Urbicius, was believed to be unpublished by notable scholars Zannetro and Morellio of the Marciana library. The letter, titled De Continentia (On Continence), is missing from the most complete edition of Basil's letters and was considered by Mai to be an authentic work of Basil. Mai's reasoning was influenced by Suidas and Photius, who praised the letter's epistolary character as fitting for Basil.

However, as we delve deeper into the origins and content of this letter, questions arise about its true authorship. Could this letter, long attributed to Basil, actually be the work of Clement of Alexandria?

Arguments for Clementine Authorship

Several compelling points suggest that this letter may indeed be by Clement of Alexandria rather than Basil or Valentinus:

1. Thematic Consistency:

   • The letter's themes, focusing on continence and its spiritual fruit, align closely with Clement’s known theological interests. Clement frequently explored these virtues, emphasizing their importance for spiritual growth and the imitation of God.

2. Linguistic Parallels:

   • The opening phrase "Καλῶς ποιεῖς" ("You do well") is found in both this letter and Clement’s Letter to Theodore. This stylistic similarity suggests a common authorship, as such specific epistolary conventions would be difficult for a forger like Morton Smith to replicate without substantial prior knowledge.

3. Historical Context and Transmission:

   • The letter's preservation in monastic collections, including a standalone document at Mar Saba, indicates a context where Clement’s works were valued and preserved. If this letter is indeed Clementine, it supports the notion that Clement’s writings were integrated into collections of other Patristic writers and transmitted through the monasteries.

4. Misattribution and Patchwork Nature:

   • The letter has been previously misattributed to Basil. Scholars such as W. Völker have pointed out that the content of the letter borrows heavily from Clement’s Stromata. This "patchwork" nature, where sections of Clement’s work are integrated into the letter, supports the idea that it could be Clement’s work rather than Basil’s.

Porter's Influence and the Valentinian Hypothesis

Geoffrey Dunn, influenced by Mark Goodacre, has argued for a Valentinian origin of the letter, suggesting that its theological content aligns more with Valentinian themes. However, this perspective may be overly influenced by a reluctance to accept the survival of Clementine letters transmitted through monastic channels.

1. Theological Overlap:

   • While the letter does contain elements that could be seen as Valentinian, it is not uncommon for early Christian writers, including Clement, to engage with and repurpose theological ideas from different traditions. This overlap does not necessarily indicate a Valentinian authorship.

2. Monastic Preservation:

   • The survival of this letter at Mar Saba and its inclusion in various collections suggest a monastic context for its transmission. The fact that a letter of Clement could survive in this manner challenges the notion that such letters would not be preserved or valued by monastic communities.

Understanding the Carpocratians

The letter also offers insights into the identity of the Carpocratians, a group often mentioned in Patristic writings. Traditionally, "Carpocrates" is understood to be a historical figure, but this letter suggests a different interpretation.

1. No Historical Carpocrates:

   • The letter implies that "Carpocratians" might refer to Alexandrian monks practicing encratism (strict self-control and abstinence) rather than followers of a single founder named Carpocrates. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that many reports on heresies were based on second or third-hand information, often containing exaggerations or misunderstandings.

2. Alignment with Clementine Theology:

   • Clement’s discussions of encratism and the spiritual fruits of continence provide context for why these monks might be labeled as "Carpocratians." This interpretation 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 broader implications for the study of early Christian texts. The thematic and linguistic parallels with Clement’s known writings, coupled with the historical context of monastic transmission, make a strong 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 demonstrates the value placed on his writings by early Christian communities. This discovery underscores the importance of critical scholarship in unraveling the complex history of early Christian literature, offering new insights into the diverse and dynamic world of early Christianity.