New "Deep Dive" Podcast Episode 10: A Stromateis of What? (Part 6) Is Pseudo-Basil Epistle 366 Another Lost Letter of Clement of Alexandria

Podcast 10 

Summary 

The author argues that Epistle 366, a short letter attributed to Pseudo-Basil, should be considered a genuine work by Clement of Alexandria. They point out the numerous thematic and linguistic parallels between the letter and Clement's known works, especially his Stromateis. The author criticizes the scholarly tendency to define Clement's authentic voice solely based on the Stromateis, which is itself an anthology and may not reflect the full range of his thought. They suggest that Epistle 366, which has been overlooked for centuries, could be a missing piece of Clement's writings, representing a more intimate and personal side of his thought. Limitations in Understanding Clement of Alexandria The sources suggest that the current scholarly understanding of Clement of Alexandria is limited by an overreliance on his work Stromateis. This anthology is treated as the definitive representation of Clement's thought, neglecting the possibility that his other writings, particularly his letters, might offer a more complete picture of his beliefs. This reliance on Stromateis limits our understanding of Clement's authentic voice and thought. 

Here's a closer look at these limitations and how they might be overcome: 

● Overemphasis on Stromateis: Scholars primarily use Stromateis as the benchmark for authentic Clementine material. However, this work is an anthology, curated by Clement himself for specific purposes. Relying solely on this curated collection provides a limited view of his ideas and ignores the potential contributions of other materials. 

● Neglecting Letters: The sources highlight that Clement wrote letters, but none are present in his known works except for references from the 7th century. This absence has led to an assumption that no genuine letters exist. However, it's possible that some of his letters were adapted, repurposed, or misattributed to other figures. 

● Missing a Fuller Picture of Clement: By focusing on the curated Stromateis and dismissing potential letters like Epistle 366, scholars risk overlooking a significant aspect of Clement's thought. Letters offer a more personal and less curated window into an individual's beliefs. Prioritizing the anthology over potential letters may lead scholars to miss a more nuanced understanding of Clement. Overcoming these limitations requires a shift in scholarly perspective: 

● Recognizing the Limitations of Stromateis: Scholars need to acknowledge that Stromateis represents a specific aspect of Clement's work and not the entirety of his thought. 

● Openness to Other Materials: Accepting the possibility of authentic Clementine letters, like Epistle 366, is crucial. Analyzing such letters alongside Stromateis might reveal a broader understanding of his ideas. 

● Considering the Historical Context: Further investigation into the historical transmission of Clement's works, including the possibility of lost or misattributed letters, could provide valuable insights.

By addressing these limitations and considering a wider range of sources, scholars can work towards a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of Clement of Alexandria.