New "Deep Dive" Podcast Episode 11: A Stromateis of What? (Conclusion) Is Pseudo-Basil Epistle 366 Another Lost Letter of Clement of Alexandria

Postcast 11 

Summary 

And finally Stephan Huller's "A Stromateis of What?" examines the potential connection between Epistle 366, to Theodore and Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis. Huller argues that Epistle 366 could be an earlier version of the third book of Stromateis, suggesting that the larger work was compiled from smaller works written by Clement. This idea, he posits, is further supported by the thematic similarities between the Epistle and Stromateis and the historical practice of expanding and integrating shorter works into larger theological compilations during early Christianity. However, Huller acknowledges that the scholarly community has not yet reached a consensus on this attribution, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of Clement's writings and a more nuanced understanding of the complex editorial processes behind Stromateis.

Rethinking Authorship and Composition 

The potential connection between Epistle 366 and Book Three of the Stromateis has significant implications for how we understand both Clement of Alexandria's authorship and the composition of his works. If Epistle 366 is indeed by Clement, it challenges the assumption that the Stromateis, as we have it, represents a definitive and singular expression of Clement's thought. Instead, the sources suggest that the Stromateis might be better understood as a compilation of Clement's earlier works, including letters and shorter treatises, that were later expanded and woven together. 

Here are some specific ways this connection changes our understanding: 

● Authorship: Attributing Epistle 366 to Clement, rather than Pseudo-Basil, adds another layer to his body of work. This attribution problem highlights the challenges of definitively attributing authorship in early Christian literature, where texts were often copied, edited, and circulated anonymously. 

● Understanding the Stromateis: The connection between Epistle 366 and Book Three of the Stromateis suggests that the Stromateis may not be a single, unified work, but rather a collection of reworked and expanded earlier writings. This is further supported by the fact that Clement often refers to his other works in the Stromateis in a cryptic and allusive way, making it difficult to reconstruct his intended meaning and the relationship between his various writings. 

● Reassessing "Authentic" Clement: Accepting Epistle 366 as Clement's work prompts a reconsideration of what constitutes the "authentic" Clement of Alexandria. If the Stromateis is a later compilation, it may not accurately represent Clement's original intentions or the full scope of his thought. We must look to his earlier works, like the possibly-connected Epistle 366 and Book Three, to gain a clearer picture. 

● Composition Practices: The possible expansion of Epistle 366 into Book Three of the Stromateis sheds light on early Christian literary practices. It appears that expanding and contextualizing shorter works within larger theological frameworks was not uncommon. This practice could serve several purposes, from creating a more comprehensive argument to aligning the text with evolving theological norms. The sources propose that other works attributed to Clement, such as On the Soul (potentially linked to Book Five of the Stromateis), might have undergone a similar transformation from shorter pieces into larger expositions. This possibility, if true, further complicates our understanding of Clement's body of work. 

Ultimately, the potential link between Epistle 366 and Book Three of the Stromateis prompts a reevaluation of Clement's authorship, the formation of the Stromateis, and the editorial practices of early Christianity.