New "Deep Dive" Podcast Episode 5: A Stromateis of What? Is Pseudo-Basil Epistle 366 Really Another Lost Letter of Clement

Podcast 5 

Summary 

The provided text is a scholarly article about the authorship of a letter, Epistle 366, attributed to Basil of Caesarea. The author argues that this letter is actually a lost letter by Clement of Alexandria, which was later repurposed as an epistle of Basil. He supports this claim by examining the letter's content and its similarities to Clement’s work, the Stromateis, a collection of theological writings. The author explores the history of scholarship surrounding this letter, highlighting different theories on its origins, including its potential connection to the arch-heretic Valentinus. He also discusses the possibility that Epistle 366 might have been included in a collection of Clement's letters that were later attributed to Basil, a practice that was not uncommon in the time period.

Relationship Between Epistle 366 and Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis 

Scholarly consensus maintains that Epistle 366 (also known as On Continence) is not an authentic letter of Basil of Caesarea, but is instead largely composed of material taken from Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis. While German scholars tend to see Epistle 366 as a Byzantine florilegium (a collection of short excerpts from other texts), the more likely explanation is that it is a repurposed letter of Clement of Alexandria that was later misattributed to Basil. This hypothesis is strengthened by a few key facts: ● There is evidence that a collection of Clement's letters existed in antiquity. 

● Epistle 366 is thematically and stylistically very similar to Clement's Stromateis. 

● Many of the formulations in Epistle 366 appear to be taken directly from a small number of passages in Clement's Stromateis, particularly Books Two and Three. 

● The content of Epistle 366 is arguably more cohesive than the corresponding passages in the Stromateis, suggesting that the letter may have served as a source for Clement rather than the other way around. Adding further intrigue to the relationship between the two texts, some scholars have suggested that Book Three of the Stromateis may have originally been a separate work titled Peri Enkrateia ("On Continence"), which is also the title of Epistle 366. If true, this would make it even more likely that Epistle 366 represents an early version of material that Clement later reworked and incorporated into his Stromateis. The sources also note that: 

● Clement lived and worked in Cappadocia, close to where Basil's monastery was later established. This close geographical proximity could explain how a letter by Clement might have ended up being attributed to Basil. 

● Many surviving manuscripts of Clement's writings appear to originate from a library in Caesarea, further suggesting a link between Clement and the area where Basil lived. 

The sources provided focus primarily on supporting the claim that Epistle 366 was written by Clement of Alexandria and was later misattributed to Basil of Caesarea. The sources do not go into detail on the specific content of the two texts, besides noting that they both discuss continence and share similar formulations.