Why Letter 366 Was Constructed the Way It Was

In examining the construction of Letter 366, traditionally attributed to Basil of Caesarea but possibly written by Clement of Alexandria, it becomes clear that its composition reflects complex theological and doctrinal concerns. By analyzing the content and context of this letter alongside another letter (Letter 262) addressed to the same monk, Urbicius, we can discern a deeper purpose behind its creation.

Basil's Doctrinal Concerns in Letter 262

Letter 262 reveals Basil's stance on the nature of Jesus Christ's incarnation. Addressed to the monk Urbicius, Basil firmly refutes the idea that God was turned into flesh, asserting instead that God assumed a human nature through the Virgin Mary. He writes:

"I am told that there are some who are endeavouring to deprave the right doctrine of the Lord's incarnation by perverse opinions, and I therefore call upon them through you to hold off from those unreasonable views... I mean that God Himself was turned into flesh; that He did not assume, through the Holy Mary, the nature of Adam, but, in His own proper Godhead, was changed into a material nature."

Basil emphasizes the necessity of maintaining the orthodox doctrine that Christ's incarnation did not involve a change in the divine nature but rather the assumption of human nature.

Continuity and Clarification in Letter 366

Letter 366 continues this theological discourse, elaborating on the concepts of continence and the nature of Jesus Christ in ways that align closely with the concerns expressed in Letter 262. Here, the letter addresses the spiritual and moral dimensions of continence:

"You do well in making exact definitions for us, so that we may recognise not only continency, but its fruit. Now its fruit is the companionship of God. For not to be corrupted, is to have part with God; just as to be corrupted is the companionship of the world."

This passage builds on the idea that continence, or self-control, is not merely a physical discipline but a spiritual state that aligns one with God, highlighting a deeper theological connection between the two letters.

Clementine Parallels and Theological Themes

The thematic parallels between Letter 366 and Clement's Stromata are striking. For instance, the concept of divine participation and incorruption is a recurring theme in both Clement's and Letter 366's writings:

• Letter 366: "Continency is denial of the body, and confession to God. It withdraws from anything mortal, like a body which has the Spirit of God."
• Stromata 5.10.64.1: "And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity; but revolt from the knowledge of God brings corruption."

Such parallels suggest that the author of Letter 366 was deeply influenced by Clementine theology, reinforcing the argument that this letter might indeed be Clement's work rather than Basil's.

Addressing Porter's Thesis

Geoffrey Dunn, influenced by Mark Goodacre, suggests that the letter has a Valentinian origin due to its theological content. However, this perspective may overlook the strong Clementine influence evident in the text. Clement often engaged with and repurposed theological ideas from different traditions, and the themes of continence and divine participation fit well within his theological framework.

The Monastic Context

The survival and transmission of Letter 366 in monastic collections, including a standalone document at Mar Saba, indicate a context where Clement’s works were valued. This monastic preservation supports the notion that Clementine writings were integrated into collections of other Patristic writers and underscores the importance of these texts in early Christian monastic communities.

Explaining the Construction of Letter 366

The construction of Letter 366 appears to serve several purposes:

1. Doctrinal Clarification:

   • By elaborating on the themes of continence and divine participation, the letter clarifies and reinforces orthodox doctrines concerning the nature of Christ's incarnation and the spiritual significance of self-control.

2. Theological Continuity:

   • The letter continues and deepens the theological discourse initiated in Letter 262, addressing similar concerns and providing a more comprehensive theological framework for understanding continence and divinity.

3. Monastic Instruction:

   • Given its preservation in monastic collections, the letter likely served as an instructional tool, guiding monks in their spiritual practice and doctrinal understanding.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Clementine Authorship

The detailed thematic and linguistic analysis of Letter 366 alongside Clement's Stromata suggests that this letter is more likely the work of Clement of Alexandria than of Basil of Caesarea or Valentinus. This reevaluation enriches our understanding of Clement's theological contributions and highlights the value placed on his writings by early Christian monastic communities. It underscores the importance of critical scholarship in unraveling the complex history of early Christian literature and offers new insights into the diverse and dynamic world of early Christianity.