Detailed Examination of Pseudo-Basil Letter 366 as a Letter of Clement of Alexandria

 Line-by-line classification

1. (b) Καλῶς ποιεῖς ὅρους ἡμῖν εὐθεῖς ὁρίζων

  • Function: Epistolary commendation for “setting straight boundaries.”

  • Clementine signals:

    • Exact “Καλῶς ποιεῖς/ἐποίησας” commendation formula matches the opening of To Theodore (“Καλῶς οὖν ἐποίησας…”) and Clement’s habit of praising a correspondent for taking a corrective/defensive stance.

    • Theme of “ὅροι” as doctrinal/moral boundary-setting fits Clement’s pastoral tone in Strom. and To Theodore (silencing Carpocratians as “wandering stars”).

  • Assessment: Very Clementine in epistolary voice and function, but not a verbatim reuse → (b).

2. (b) ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐγκράτειαν ἴδωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς

  • Structure: Classic Clementine “οὐ/μὴ μόνον… ἀλλὰ καὶ…” expansion.

  • Clementine themes:

    • ἐγκράτεια as more than a single act/field; cf. Strom. 3.1.4.2; 3.7.59.1; 3.7.57.3 where ἐγκράτεια extends across all desires and has a deeper telos.

    • Moves from seeing the virtue to seeing its “fruit” (καρπός), exactly Clement’s habit of pushing beyond moral surface to transformative outcome.

  • Assessment: Phrase-shape and logic are strongly Clementine, but not an exact lift → (b).

3. (b) ἔστιν οὖν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῆς Θεοῦ μετουσία

  • Key term: μετουσία + Θεός as the “fruit” of a virtue.

  • Direct Clementine pattern:

    • Strom. 5.10.63.8: knowledge of the Father as life “κατὰ μετουσίαν τῆς τοῦ ἀφθάρτου δυνάμεως… τὸ μὴ φθείρεσθαι θειότητος μετέχειν.”

    • Paed. 3.12.86.2: μετουσία in “truly good things,” mediated by the Logos.

    • Strom. 7.12.79.4–5: the one who becomes “entirely light,” not merely warmed by μετουσία.

  • Assessment: Idea and collocation are very Clementine but the exact clause as a whole isn’t word-for-word from a known passage → (b).

4. (a) τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 5.10.64.1: “τὸ μὲν μὴ φθείρεσθαι θειότητος μετέχειν ἐστί, φθορὰν δὲ ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ γνώσεως ἀπόστασις παρέχει.”

  • Features:

    • Same syntactic frame “τὸ μὴ φθείρεσθαι … μετέχειν ἐστί.”

    • Same antithesis φθείρεσθαι / μὴ φθείρεσθαι, tying corruption to mortal life and incorruption to participation in God.

  • Assessment: This is essentially a re-cast of Strom. 5.10.64.1 with minimal tweaking → (a).

5. (a) ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 3.1.4.2: “ἐγκράτεια τοίνυν σώματος ὑπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογίαν.”

  • Features:

    • Same definitional pattern “ἐγκράτεια … σώματος … ὁμολογία πρὸς/πρὸς θεόν.”

    • Same alignment of bodily restraint with a God-ward confession.

  • Assessment: Concept and formulation are near-verbatim from Strom. 3.1.4.2 → (a).

6. (c) ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα

  • Content: ἐγκράτεια transcends “all that is mortal” as if the body “has the Spirit of God.”

  • Clementine elements:

    • θνητός / θεός word-field; Clement loves θεότης/θνητότης contrasts (Paed. esp. around “never live mortally when consecrated to God”).

    • Pneumatology: Spirit in/around the body as sign of overcoming mortality, matching Clement’s ascetic pneumatology.

  • Assessment: Strongly Clementine in thought and wordplay, but not tied to an exact extant sentence → (c).

7. (b) καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον

  • Theme: ἐγκράτεια produces union with God, without ζῆλος or φθόνος.

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 6.9.71–72: gnostic/Christ described as ἀπαθής, immune to παθητικά κινήματα, including ζῆλος, etc.

  • Assessment: Vocabulary and apatheia-theology line up with Clement’s gnostic ideal; the phrase about union with God without jealousy/envy is very Clementine → (b).

8. (c) ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, … ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ

  • Content: Desire for a body leads to jealousy; one who has not internalized the disease of corruption lives in incorruption, even if dead bodily.

  • Parallels:

    • Strom. 4.18.115–117: long discussion of looking at a woman with desire, dream-lust, and symbolic story of Bocchoris—themes of erotic desire, imagination, and judgment.

  • Assessment: Same moral psychology (desire, envy, corruption vs. incorruption), but phrased more compactly; fits Clement well but not a direct citation → (c).

9. (c) καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 5.14.90.5: “καταμανθάνοντες τὸ φθέγμα.”

  • Assessment: Stock Clementine verb for “fully grasping” in a technical/mystagogical argumentative context; mild but real stylistic echo → (c).

10. (b) ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 7.13.81.1: “ἓν … ὧν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται, μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖν, μηδένα μισεῖν.”

  • Clementine traits:

    • God defined via apatheia: μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖν.

    • Divine self-sufficiency “πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ” matching Strom. 5.11.68 on God as ἀνενδεής and πλήρης.

  • Assessment: Unites two clear Clementine lines (God’s lack of desire and plenitude); strongly Clementine, though slightly recombined → (b).

11. (b) καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς… ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 5.11.68.1–3: God without need (ἀνενδεής), no share in created things, anthropomorphic eyes/hands etc. to be allegorized, not real πάθη.

  • Assessment: Same theological profile and same rare adjectives; the pairing ἀνενδεής + πλήρης is classic Clementine theology of God → (b).

12. (b) ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια

  • Clementine pattern:

    • Repeated medical metaphor: νόσος ψυχῆς vs. ὑγεία; Paed. 1.1; 1.2; 1.8; Strom. 2.13–14.

    • Christ/Logos as physician of νοσοῦσα ψυχή; ἐγκράτεια as part of θεραπεία leading to ἀΐδιος ὑγεία.

  • Assessment: Perfect condensation of Clement’s medical moralism; strongly characteristic formulation even if this exact antithesis isn’t extant verbatim → (b).

13. (a) Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν… οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 3.7.59.1: “οὐ μόνον περί τι ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν συνορᾶν προσήκει, τουτέστι τὰ ἀφροδίσια, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα… οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις…”

  • Assessment: This is straight from Strom. 3.7.59 with only minor verbal adjustment → (a).

14. (b) γίνεται φθόνος διὰ χρυσίον, καὶ ἀδικήματα μυρία δἰ ἑτέρας ἐπιθυμίας

  • Context: Extension of 13; greed for gold begets envy and countless injustices.

  • Parallel:

    • The rest of Strom. 3.7.59–60 develops precisely these social/moral consequences of uncontrolled ἐπιθυμία.

  • Assessment: Stylistically indistinguishable from the Stromateis paragraph; but because the exact sentence is not word-for-word in our text, “very Clementine” rather than strictly verbatim → (b).

15. (a) καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν… καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν

  • Parallel:

    • Again Strom. 3.7.59.1: ἐγκράτεια is “to despise money, luxury, property… to control the mouth, to rule over evil thoughts (κυριεύειν λογισμῶν τῶν πονηρῶν).”

  • Assessment: Direct recycling of Clement’s catalogue of ἐγκρατεῖς behaviors → (a).

16. (c) ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια… καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς

  • Themes:

    • Bad (and false) ἔννοια disturbing the soul, dividing the heart into many vain cares.

  • Clementine echoes:

    • Strom. has repeated critiques of worldly φροντίδες that “busy” the soul (ἀπασχολεῖν τὴν ψυχήν) and of πάθη as παρὰ φύσιν κινήσεις of the ψυχή against λόγος.

  • Assessment: Very much Clement’s moral psychology, but not tied to a specific line we can cite → (c).

17. (a) πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα… Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 3.1.4.2: “οὐ διδάσκει δ’ αὕτη σωφρονεῖν μόνον, ἥ γε παρέχει σωφροσύνην ἡμῖν, δύναμις οὖσα καὶ θεία χάρις.”

    • 3.7.57.2–3: ἐγκράτεια can only be received “χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ.”

  • Assessment: Same definitional cluster: ἐγκράτεια as δύναμις + θεία χάρις; the line in 366 is essentially a paraphrased stitch of those Stromateis sentences → (a).

18. (b) Ἰησοῦς ἐγκράτεια ἐφάνη, καὶ γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ κοῦφος γενόμενος…

  • Content:

    • Jesus “appeared as ἐγκράτεια,” “light (κοῦφος) on land and sea,” not weighing down earth or water.

  • Clementine flavour:

    • In Strom. 6.9.71–72 Jesus’ body is supported by divine power, not needing the usual bodily services; he eats/drinks “not on account of the body.”

    • Clement loves “levitating” imagery for gnostic/light existence; this is an imaginative intensification, but conceptually fits his Christology and ascetic ideal.

  • Assessment: No verbatim parallel, but the Christology and imagery sit perfectly in Clement’s system → (b).

19. (b) εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φθορὰν μὴ ἔχειν τὸ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν

  • Logic: Mini-syllogism linking corruption → death, incorruption → non-death.

  • Clementine context:

    • Fits with the φθορά / θάνατος pairing in the Salome–“Gospel of the Egyptians” tradition Clement cites; also with Strom. 5.10–11 on φθορά as consequence of separation from God.

  • Assessment: Clement’s style of tight philosophical enthymeme built on key terms φθορά/θάνατος; very much his voice → (b).

20. (a) θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα… μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ…

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 3.7.59.1–2 quoting Valentinus’ letter to Agathopous: “θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα… μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν.”

  • Assessment: This is basically the same text; Epistle 366 just weaves it directly into its ἐγκράτεια argument → (a).

21. (c) Ὀλίγον τι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐὰν ᾖ ἐγκράτεια, ἀνώτεροι ἁπάντων ἐσμέν

  • Theme: Even a little ἐγκράτεια makes us “above all.”

  • Clementine context:

    • Matches his graded anthropology: gnostic above psychic above hylic; mastery of passions → superiority “over the world.”

  • Assessment: Concept and elevation language are Clementine; simple, aphoristic form with no exact parallel we can point to → (c).

22. (a) καὶ γὰρ ἀγγέλους ἠκούσαμεν ἀκρατεῖς γεγονέναι κατασπασθέντας οὐρανοῦ δἰ ἐπιθυμίαν

  • Parallel:

    • Strom. 3.7.59.1: “ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἄγγελοί τινες ἀκρατεῖς γενόμενοι ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἁλόντες οὐρανόθεν δεῦρο καταπεπτώκασιν.”

  • Assessment: Same motif, vocabulary and structure; clear reuse → (a).

23. (b) ἑάλωσαν γάρ, οὐχὶ κατέβησαν

  • Content: Angels “were caught,” they didn’t simply “come down” freely.

  • Link:

    • Clarifies and sharpens the Stromateis line about ἄγγελοι ἁλόντες / καταπεπτώκασιν; also resonates with Strom. 7.7.46.2 on angels sliding down from negligence.

  • Assessment: Short Clementine gloss; very much in his “moralizing of angelic fall” idiom → (b).

24. (c) τί γὰρ ἔπραττεν ἐκεῖ αὕτη ἡ νόσος, εἰ μή τις ἐκεῖ τοιοῦτος ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν; διὰ τοῦτο ἔφην:

  • Theme: Disease (νόσος) present only where there is a corresponding “eye” to host it.

  • Clementine resonance:

    • Again νόσος for passions/false reasoning; the link to “eye” picks up Clement’s allegorical use of bodily organs as faculties of perception and error.

    • Fits his habit of reasoning from “what is such a disease doing there unless there is a receptive faculty?”

  • Assessment: No exact parallel, but the metaphor cluster (νόσος + ὀφθαλμός) in a moral-psychological argument is very Clementine → (c).

25. (b) Ὀλίγον ἐγκράτειαν ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, καὶ τοῦ βίου μὴ ἐρασθῶμεν ἀλλ̓ αἰώνων τῶν ἀνωτέρων, ἐκεῖ εὑρεθησόμεθα ὅπου ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν

  • Themes:

    • Small ἐγκράτεια + non-erotic love of this life + love of higher αἰῶνες.

    • Ascent imagery: finding ourselves where we “send up” the mind (ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν).

  • Clementine:

    • Gnostic ascent, mind lifted heavenward; cf. Protr. on Christ/ὁδός “ἀναπέμπουσα” upwards.

    • Non-attachment to βίος and orientation to αἰώνιος ζωὴ is core Clement.

  • Assessment: The exact phrase ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν is unique but sits squarely in Clement’s conceptual world → (b).

26. (c) δοκεῖ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, τὸν τὰ ἀφανῆ ἰδεῖν δυνάμενον. καὶ γὰρ λέγεται:

  • Theme: Inner “eye” that can see τὰ ἀφανῆ.

  • Clement:

    • Constant interest in ἀφανῆ / ἀόρατα realities and the “eye of the soul” that perceives them.

  • Assessment: Classic Middle-Platonizing Clementine rhetoric; again, no exact locus, but very much his way of speaking → (c).

27. (a) Νοῦς ὁρᾷ, καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει

  • Source: Epicharmus.

  • Clementine uniqueness:

    • Clement is (so far as we know) the first Christian writer to deploy this line and does so repeatedly (esp. Strom. 5.14 etc.).

    • Theodoret later borrows it from Clement; Basil is not known for Epicharmus and almost never anchors ascetic argument with comic-poet citations.

  • Assessment: This is a smoking gun Clementine signature, both in source choice and in how it caps a noetic argument → (a).

28. (c) ταῦτά σοι ὀλίγα δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ γέγραφα, ὅτι ἑκάστη λέξις νοῦς ἐστιν: καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀναγνοὺς αἰσθήσῃ

  • Themes:

    • Paradox of “few” that are actually “many.”

    • Every word as νοῦς; reading leads to αἴσθησις (perceptive grasp).

  • Clementine style:

    • Esoteric tone: words as vehicles of νοῦς, deeper understanding reserved for the one who really “perceives” upon reading.

    • Very close to the way he speaks to the advanced in Strom. about hidden meanings and “gnostic” readers.

  • Assessment: Stylistically very Clementine but not directly paralellous → (c).

Percentages: how “Clementine” is the whole letter?

  • Category (a) = verbatim / very close paraphrase of known Clement:

    • 4, 5, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 27 → 8 units.

  • Category (b) = very Clementine-sounding (strong thematic + linguistic convergence):

    • 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 23, 25 → 12 units.

  • Category (c) = generally Clementine but not tightly parallelled:

    • 6, 8, 9, 16, 21, 24, 26, 28 → 8 units.

  • Category (d) = generic:

    • None clearly left in (d) after revisions.

Total segments = 28.

So roughly:

  • (a) ≈ 8/28 ≈ 28.6%

  • (b) ≈ 12/28 ≈ 42.9%

  • (c) ≈ 8/28 ≈ 28.6%

  • (d) = 0%

In other words:

  • About 71–72% of the letter (a + b) is either directly Stromateis/Paedagogus language or extremely tight Clementine imitation.

  • The remaining ~28% (c) is still fully at home in Clement’s conceptual and stylistic world.

  • There is nothing that is positively Basilian or even neutral; the (d) bucket effectively disappears.

Why this points to Clement rather than Basil

If you step back from the micro-parallels, the macro-picture is:

  • The letter is essentially an ascetic florilegium built out of Clement’s own material:

    • Stock definitions of ἐγκράτεια as divine δύναμις and χάρις.

    • The famous Valentinus passage on Jesus’ food not undergoing φθορά.

    • The fallen angels ἀκρατεῖς δι’ ἐπιθυμίαν.

    • The exact μετουσία/μετέχειν + μὴ φθείρεσθαι formula.

    • The medical trope “ἐπιθυμία νόσος ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια.”

    • The Epicharmus closing “νοῦς ὁρᾷ καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει.”

  • The argumentative structure and wordplay (θεότης / θνητότης, θεός / φθορά, νοῦς / ὀφθαλμός / ἀφανῆ) are precisely Clement’s stock toys; Basil simply does not build ascetic exhortations this way, nor does he lace them with comic-pagan citations as a capstone.

  • Epistle 366 hangs together as a coherent, Clementine sermon on ἐγκράτεια, woven mostly from Strom. 3 and 5, plus Clement’s own favourite Epicharmus line and his characteristic vocabulary about God’s apatheia and self-sufficiency.

Given:

  • the very high density of verbatim Clementine material,

  • the total absence of specifically Basilian traits, and

  • the presence of Clement’s “signature” elements (Epicharmus, angels falling by desire, Jesus’ incorrupt food, ἐγκράτεια as θεία χάρις),

the simplest explanation is not “a later Basilian compiler happened to string together Clement,” but that Epistle 366 is itself a Clementine piece (or at worst, an early Clementine florilegium), mis-attributed to Basil much later.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts