Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

From one of the volumes:

En magni Basilii epistolam, ex prisco codice 61,f. 324, a me exscriptam quae olim clarissimis quoque viris Marcianae bibliothecae descriptoribus Zannetro atque Morellio inedita visa est; atque utrum sit alicubi postremis his annis edita, mihi non consat, sed certe in plenissima Garnerii editione desideratur. Ea scribitur ad Urbicum monachum, ad quem aliae duae Basilii epistolae exstant, nempe 123 and 262, in Garneriana editione. Argumentum titulusque est De Continentia, neque ver scriptum hoc Basilianum diutius ego celandum arbitror praesertim quia Suidas ac Photius nihil praestantius aut epistolari characteri accommodatius Basilii epistolis esse judicarunt. Mai, biblioth. nov. patr). iii. 450).

Translation:

"An epistle of the great Basilius, from the ancient codex 61, f. 324, copied by me, which was once seen unpublished by the most famous men of the Marciana library, Zannetro and Morellio; and whether it has been published anywhere in these last years, I do not know, but certainly in the most complete It is missing in the Garnerian edition. It is written to an Urbic monk, to whom two other letters of Basil exist, namely 123 and 262, in the Garnerian edition. The subject and title is De Continentia, and I do not think that this Basilianus was written in spring any longer, especially because Suidas and Photius have nothing more outstanding or They judged that it was more suitable to the epistolary character of Basil's epistles (May, biblioth. nov. patr).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

This is quite useful:

In keeping with Maran’s chronological arrangement, the letters have been studied in
modern times largely for their biographical interest, with a particular focus on detecting
change and development in Basil’s thought. In this essay’s concluding paragraphs, I will
raise some questions regarding the value of reading the letters solely with this focus. There
is no denying, however, that the letters provide a wealth of data for a modern biography. The
chronological scheme yields the following results: Ep. 1–46 date from the period before 370,
when Basil became bishop; Ep. 47–291 are from his episcopacy; and Ep. 292–366 cannot be
dated. Naturally, the fi rst thing one notices is the preponderance of letters from Basil’s time
as bishop. Yet, it is perhaps more striking that so many letters were preserved from earlier
in his life; Basil’s renown was not tied solely to his offi cial role in Caesarea. Moreover, as we
FOUR
The Letter Collection of
Basil of Caesarea
ANDREW RADDE-GALLWITZ
70    Andrew Radde-Gallwitz
will see, the shape and transmission of the collection in some ways refl ected the image late
antique Christians had of Basil as a cultured and saintly Christian revered for his defi ance
of impious and tyrannical authorities.
Our concern here is with what the surviving evidence can tell us about the original collection or collections of Basil’s correspondence. To get at this, we need a brief overview of the
manuscript evidence and how it has been treated in modern scholarship. The chronological
collection of Garnier and Maran was augmented to form the canon of 366 letters printed in
J. P. Migne’s edition.7
Migne’s larger canon is presented in the Loeb edition by Roy Deferrari,8
and again in Yves Courtonne’s critical edition.9
The foundation for a critical edition
was laid by Abbé Marius Bessières, whose study, published posthumously between 1919 and
1922, established the stemma that would be assumed by scholars for nearly a century. Bessières showed that the manuscripts divide into two branches, with the A branch subdivided
into three families (Aa, Ab, and Ac) and the B branch into four (Bo, Bu, Bx, and Bz). The
family with the largest number of witnesses is Aa, and it also has the merit of containing the
manuscript with the oldest collection: the tenth-century parchment Patmos 57.10 Bessiéres
argued, largely on the basis of the order in which the letters are presented, that the Aa family is the most primitive and is the sole source for the other families. After Bessières came
the text-critical study of Anders Cavallin and the important addition to our knowledge of the
manuscripts by Stig Rudberg, neither of whom fundamentally altered Bessières’s stemma.11
Courtonne’s critical edition continues to be used, even though Courtonne has been criticized for his reliance on insuffi cient manuscript witnesses,12 and his inexplicable acceptance
of dubious and spurious letters such as Ep. 45.13
That is a snapshot of how the canon was constructed in modern editions. Our task in this
essay is to reverse the inquiry and ask about the original form or forms of Basil’s letter collection. There is no evidence that Basil published a collection of his own letters, even though he
likely kept copies of many.14 We must therefore distinguish between Basil’s own cultivation of
the letters and the form of the original collection. Let us fi rst examine what the manuscript
tradition might reveal. Here, we must choose between two proposals. The fi rst was made by
Bessières and augmented by his editor C. H. Turner. Bessières’s reasoning for placing the
eight manuscripts of the Aa family together is based largely on the unique order in which
these manuscripts present the letters. This order, he reasoned, had to be primitive, since it
cannot be explained as deriving from any other order presented in the other families, whereas
the other families can be explained as editorial derivations from Aa. The manuscript order of
Aa at fi rst appears to be a jumble, but on closer examination contains a clue to the original
collection that stands behind it. Bessières noted that, of the 273 letters presented in Aa, only
the fi rst 100 appear in seemingly haphazard order.15 To Bessières, this suggested that the editor of those 100 letters was entirely neutral, simply placing letters in the order he found them.
Starting with the 101st letter in this family’s order, letters are grouped by addressee. For
instance, letters 101–4 in this manuscript order (Ep. 76, 96, 180, and 177) are all addressed to
Sophronius. The next three (Ep. 344, 345, and 346) are pieces of correspondence between
Basil and Libanius. This pattern recurs throughout the remainder of the collection.

Moreover, in many cases, the addressees of the letters that appear after the initial 100 letters are also addressed among the initial 100. The diff erence is that after the fi rst 100, letters
are grouped by addressee, whereas the initial 100 evince no such grouping. This suggested
to Bessières that the fi rst 100 letters in the Aa manuscript order constitute the earliest collection we have, and that the subsequent letters in Aa were tacked on piecemeal at a later date.
After all, if the subsequent letters were part of the same collection as the fi rst 100, they would
have been incorporated with them and would not bear a diff erent organizational pattern. The
editor responsible for Aa did not disturb the original collection, but merely added to it.
Bessières conjectured that the editor of this primitive collection was none other than
Gregory of Nazianzus, who is our fi rst external witness to a collection of Basil’s letters.
Turner commented that, with this fi rm identifi cation, “perhaps M. Bessières is overstepping
the due bounds of caution.”16 There are problems with the notion that Gregory chose the fi rst
100 letters that appear in Aa. It is hard to explain the relative absence of letters addressed to
Gregory among these letters. In fact, there is only one, Ep. 2. Why would Gregory include
one letter from Basil to himself, while excluding others? Bessières hypothesizes that this
was because Gregory instead included the correspondence between the two in the collection
of his own letters. Since we do not know the exact contents of Gregory’s self-collection, this
supposition is unprovable.
Added to these problems are those raised by Fedwick in an important response to Bessières in the fi rst volume of the former’s study of the manuscript tradition, the Bibliotheca
Basiliana Vniversalis. Whereas Bessières had relied heavily on the external criterion of the
order of the letters for his stemma, Fedwick deployed a more fi ne-grained set of fi ve criteria
to reclassify the manuscript families for the letters. Fedwick used the internal evidence of
textual variants as the primary criterion, followed by the titles of letters, the order of letters,
omission of the same work, and inclusion of a rare work. In applying these standards, he
grew suspicious of Bessières’s stemma. In particular, Fedwick criticized Bessières’s claim
that the editor responsible for the Aa family (which Fedwick reclassifi ed as Ec) was neutral.
For one thing, this editor off ered more elaborate titles for the letters than did the editor
behind the Ab family, which Fedwick argues is more primitive, retitling it Ea. Fedwick’s
revision of the manuscript transmission has signifi cance for our quest for the original form
of Basil’s letter collections, since Ea arranges the letters by addressee. For Fedwick, Ea’s
arrangement represents the original state of aff airs:
A more plausible suggestion [than that of Bessières] is that initially all the letters
existed in batches, that is, Basil kept in his fi les letters addressed to the same
correspondents together. Undoubtedly, some of his correspondents like Eusebios of
Samosata and Gregory of Nazianzos also kept copies of these letters together. In my
opinion, it was the author of Ec [ = Bessières’s Aa] who dismembered these blocks
and not that of Ea [ = Ab] who put them back together. In other words, corpus Ea
stems from the simple, almost mechanical, assembling of scattered lots, whereas Ec
originates from a desire to choose some of the letters.17

Fedwick posits that after Basil’s death but before the compilation of the collection found in
the Ea family, the letters circulated in lots; that is, all of Basil’s (available) letters to Eusebius
of Samosata would have circulated together, all those to Libanius in a separate bunch, and
so on.18
What, then, accounts for the apparent disorder in Bessières’s Aa family? Recall that, for
Bessières, this chaotic arrangement constituted a major reason for thinking the family to be
close to the original: chaos precedes order. Fedwick counters that the editor behind this family was more intrusive than Bessières acknowledged. The order might look like a jumble, but
Fedwick assumes that this fi gure had reasons for his arrangement, even as he admits that
he cannot divine them: “Because the author of Ec has been editing the titles, here, as well,
he is following some (obscure) plan, perhaps based on the contents of specifi c letters.” For
Fedwick, Bessières’s supposedly primitive order is instead “the work of an editor interested
in the contents of the works who lacks historical sense. He overcompensates for this by
appending elaborate headings.”19 From his remarks elsewhere in the volume, it is clear that
when Fedwick speaks of lacking historical sense, he means that this editor imposed his system, however impenetrable it is to us, on the letters. Perhaps he detected a thematic link
among the letters, even if it is hard for a modern reader to see it. The insight that motivates
Fedwick’s study is that all compilers of manuscripts are authors, compiling the letters
according to some rationale. From the earliest stages, a rational scheme can be detected in
the manuscripts. Rather than following the crypto-Hegelian notion of primitive anarchy
that becomes ordered only later, Fedwick sees a pattern in the earliest compilers of Basil’s
letters, and the principle was the addressee. Fedwick proposes a renumbering of the letters
according to the same schema used by these primitive compilers, such that he gives, for
instance, Amphilochio Ikonii episkopo 1–18 as the titles for the eighteen letters to Amphilochius. He bases the order of the eighteen letters to Amphilochius on the order in the Ea family itself, rather than imposing an order on them such as a chronology.
But if letters are grouped by addressee in the Ea manuscripts, how were the addressees
themselves placed in order? On this question, Fedwick did not perhaps follow his own
insight about authors who assembled the letters in accordance with a pattern; instead, he
spoke of a “simple, almost mechanical” process of compilation. If we take Ea’s order as primitive, there does seem to be a rationale for the order in which Basil’s correspondents are presented. The principle seems to be that the more signifi cant addressees were placed earlier.
So, for instance, the fi rst exemplar of the family, Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana gr.
79, begins with the following: seven letters to Gregory of Nazianzus, two of them spurious;
nineteen to Eusebius of Samosata, and a set of additional letters associated with him;20 two
letters purportedly to Gregory of Nyssa, one of which is Ep. 38, generally held today to be by
Gregory,21 and three more to Gregories who were perhaps confl ated with Basil’s brother; six
to Athanasius of Alexandria and two more to other Athanasii; twenty-two pieces of the BasilLibanius correspondence, many now considered spurious; the one letter from Basil to
Ambrose of Milan; and then his six letters to Meletius of Antioch. Illustrious men all of
them.22 One feature that stands out in the manuscript is the relatively frequent incidence of confl ation of various addressees with the same name: in addition to the examples mentioned, one could cite the various Eustathii whose letters appear together. Basil himself
would likely not have made such an error, and so this feature of the Ea family’s arrangement
is likely the result of a later hand who is attempting to follow Basil’s own principle of aggregating letters by addressee. The false matches tend to appear after a series of properly attributed letters, and thus appear to be later additions to earlier batches.
On the whole, Fedwick’s proposal accounts for the manuscript evidence more convincingly than does Bessières’s. His picture of Basil using a system that approximates a modern
fi ling system with letters arranged by addressee, and of early circulations of these batches,
seems to represent well the method behind Basil’s letter collection in its earliest phases. It
has the additional merit of matching what we know about other letter collections from the
period that were arranged by addressee, notably those of Gregory of Nazianzus.
Fedwick mentions Basil’s own cultivation of the letters “in fi les.” Although there surely
must have been some system, one wishes that more could be said about it. What would such
a system have looked like in the fourth century? Where was it kept? By whom? In the case of
Basil’s ascetic works, there is a set of late antique scholia by a fi fth- or sixth-century manuscript collector that informs us about the various places where copies of Basil’s Great Asketikon was kept. There was a copy at the complex of buildings for charitable support known as
the “Basileias” in Caesarea, another in Pontus, and others elsewhere “to the east.”23 This variety, as well as Basil’s own revisions and successive editions, contributed to a very complex
transmission for his ascetic corpus. There was no single primitive text for those works. One
wonders how many places stored batches of Basil’s letters. If all the letters were stored in Basil’s own fi les, presumably in Caesarea, the collection would likely not have come together
piecemeal with the gradual addition of various blocks, as Fedwick convincingly surmises.
We can now turn our focus from the evidence of the manuscript transmission to the letters themselves. If we have discovered a method, can we detect a motive for the collection?
Again, we must stress that the motive was not Basil’s, since he did not publish a collection.
Basil’s public career was characterized by disputes with imperial offi cials, other bishops, and
even friends. Accused of heresy on more than one occasion, Basil regularly had to defend
himself. It is no surprise, then, that his letters were dragged into these fi ghts. The fi rst time
we hear of the circulation of Basil’s letters, or perhaps better, letters ascribed to Basil, the
intent was hostile. Around 372—two years into his episcopacy—followers of Eustathius of
Sebasteia who were hostile to Basil’s Trinitarian doctrine published letters purportedly
between Basil and Apollinarius of Laodicea from many years earlier. By the time these letters made their rounds, Basil was known for his embrace of the Creed of Nicaea, with its
teaching that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father, a phrase that Eustathius and
company found suspiciously close to Sabellianism. The goal in circulating these letters was
to expose Basil by associating his theology with that of Apollinarius. For Basil’s opponents,
the problem with Apollinarius at this point was not his eponymous Christological heresy,
which would not emerge as controversial in Asia Minor until the later 370s, but rather that
in his defense of Nicaea, he was a crypto-Sabellian


9. Yves Courtonne, Saint Basile, Correspondance, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Paris: Société d’Édition “Les
Belles Lettres,” 2003). Courtonnes’s three volumes (vol. 1, Lettres I–C; vol. 2, Lettres CI–CCXVIII;
and vol. 3, Lettres CCXIX–CCCLXVI) were fi rst published in 1957, 1961, and 1966, respectively.
10. To be sure, there is a sixth-century papyrus, but it contains a very small collection of fi ve
fragmentary letters: Ep. 5, 6, 293, 150, and 2 (Carl Schmidt and Wilhelm Schubart, eds., Altchristliche Texte, Berliner Klassikertexte 6 [Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1910], 21–37).
11. Anders Cavallin, Studien zu den Briefen des hl. Basilius (Lund: Gleerupska universitetsbokhandeln, 1944); Stig Y. Rudberg, Études sur la tradition manuscrite de saint Basile (Lund: Hakan
Ohlssons, 1953); Anders Cavallin, “Manuscripts and Editions of the Works of Basil of Caesarea,”
in Fedwick, Basil of Caesarea, 1:49–65.
12. See the reviews by Stig Y. Rudberg in Gnomon 31 (1959): 123–28; 35 (1963): 262–64; and
40 (1968): 776–78.
13. E. Amand de Mendieta, “L’authenticité de la letter 45 de la correspondance de Basile de
Césarée,” StudPatr 10 (1970): 44n1.
14. See Bessières, “Chapitre V,” 245.
15. The smaller scope of the manuscript collections (in this case, 273 letters) as opposed to the
modern canon of 366 letters is striking. Certain sets of spurious letters made their way into the
canon, and certain sets of letters (such as the canonical letters Ep. 188, 199, and 21) that were
transmitted in diff erent manuscript traditions were integrated into the corpus by modern editors.
16. Bessières, “Chapitre I,” 8.
17. Paul Jonathan Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana Vniversalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, vol. 1, The Letters, CCSG (Turnhout: Brepols, 1993), xxx
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

I think I can see why Letter 366 was constructed the way it was.

1. Letter 262 is a letter written to the same Urbicus where Basil does not believe Jesus had normal flesh:
To the Monk Urbicius.

1. You have done well to write to me. You have shown how great is the fruit of charity. Continue so to do. Do not think that, when you write to me, you need offer excuses. I recognise my own position, and I know that by nature every man is of equal honour with the rest. Whatever excellence there is in me is not of family, nor of superfluous wealth, nor of physical condition; it comes only of superiority in the fear of God. What, then, hinders you from fearing the Lord yet more, and so, in this respect, being greater than I am? Write often to me, and acquaint me with the condition of the brotherhood with you. Tell me what members of the Church in your parts are sound, that I may know to whom I ought to write, and in whom I may confide. 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, which some are reported to me to hold. 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.

2. This absurd position can be easily confuted. The blasphemy is its own conviction, and I therefore think that, for one who fears the Lord, the mere reminder is enough. If He was turned, then He was changed. But far be it from me to say or think such a thing, when God has declared, I am the Lord, I change not. Malachi 3:6 Moreover, how could the benefit of the incarnation be conveyed to us, unless our body, joined to the Godhead, was made superior to the dominion of death? If He was changed, He no longer constituted a proper body, such as subsisted after the combination with it of the divine body. But how, if all the nature of the Only-begotten was changed, could the incomprehensible Godhead be circumscribed within the limit of the mass of a little body? I am sure that no one who is in his senses, and has the fear of God, is suffering from this unsoundness. But the report has reached me that some of your company are afflicted with this mental infirmity, and I have therefore thought it necessary, not to send you a mere formal greeting, but to include in my letter something which may even build up the souls of them that fear the Lord. I therefore urge that these errors receive ecclesiastical correction, and that you abstain from communion with the heretics. I know that we are deprived of our liberty in Christ by indifference on these points.
2. whoever made or repurposed what is now letter 366 further explains what Basil's position was for better or worse:
Basil to Urbicius the monk, concerning continency

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. Continency is denial of the body, and confession to God. It withdraws from anything mortal, like a body which has the Spirit of God. It is without rivalry and envy, and causes us to be united to God. He who loves a body envies another. He who has not admitted the disease of corruption into his heart, is for the future strong enough to endure any labour, and though he have died in the body, he lives in incorruption. Verily, if I rightly apprehend the matter, God seems to me to be continency, because He desires nothing, but has all things in Himself. He reaches after nothing, nor has any sense in eyes or ears; wanting nothing, He is in all respects complete and full. Concupiscence is a disease of the soul; but continency is its health. And continency must not be regarded only in one species, as, for instance, in matters of sensual love. It must be regarded in everything which the soul lusts after in an evil manner, not being content with what is needful for it. Envy is caused for the sake of gold, and innumerable wrongs for the sake of other lusts. Not to be drunken is continency. Not to overeat one's self is continency. To subdue the body is continency, and to keep evil thoughts in subjection, whenever the soul is disturbed by any fancy false and bad, and the heart is distracted by vain cares. Continency makes men free, being at once a medicine and a power, for it does not teach temperance; it gives it. Continency is a grace of God. Jesus seemed to be continency, when He was made light to land and sea; for He was carried neither by earth nor ocean, and just as He walked on the sea, so He did not weigh down the earth. For if death comes of corruption, and not dying comes of not having corruption, then Jesus wrought not mortality but divinity. He ate and drank in a peculiar manner, without rendering his food., So mighty a power in Him was continency, that His food was not corrupted in Him, since He had no corruption. If only there be a little continency in us, we are higher than all. We have been told that angels were ejected from heaven because of concupiscence and became incontinent. They were vanquished; they did not come down. What could that plague have effected there, if an eye such as I am thinking of had been there? Wherefore I said, If we have a little patience, and do not love the world, but the life above, we shall be found there where we direct our mind. For it is the mind, apparently, which is the eye that sees unseen things. For we say "the mind sees;" "the mind hears." I have written at length, though it may seem little to you. But there is meaning in all that I have said, and, when you have read it, you will see it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Καλῶς ποιεῖς ὅρους ἡμῖν εὐθεῖς ὁρίζων, ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐγκράτειαν ἴδωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῆς Θεοῦ μετουσία. τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία. ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν. ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, ὁ δὲ μὴ κομισάμενος εἰς καρδίαν τῆς φθορᾶς τὴν νόσον ἔρρωται λοιπὸν πόνῳ παντί, καίπερ ἀποθανὼν μὲν τῷ σώματι, ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. [p. 352] καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι, ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ: καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ ὦτα, ἀλλὰ ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν. ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια. Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν οἷον ἕνεκεν ἀφροδισίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις: γίνεται φθόνος διὰ χρυσίον, καὶ ἀδικήματα μυρία δἰ ἑτέρας ἐπιθυμίας. καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ διαρρήγνυσθαι ὑπερεμπιπλάμενον. καὶ τὸ κρατεῖν τοῦ σώματος ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια, οὐκ ἀγαθὴ οὖσα οὔτε ἀληθής, καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς. πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια. Ἰησοῦς ἐγκράτεια ἐφάνη, καὶ γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ κοῦφος γενόμενος. οὔτε γὰρ γῆ ἐβάστασεν αὐτόν, οὔτε πελάγη, ἀλλ̓ ὥσπερ ἐπάτησεν θάλασσαν, οὕτως οὐκ ἐβάρησεν τὴν γῆν. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φθορὰν μὴ ἔχειν τὸ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως, οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα: τοσαύτη ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἐγκράτεια [p. 354] δύναμις ἦν, ὥστε μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Ὀλίγον τι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐὰν ᾖ ἐγκράτεια, ἀνώτεροι ἁπάντων ἐσμέν. καὶ γὰρ ἀγγέλους ἠκούσαμεν ἀκρατεῖς γεγονέναι κατασπασθέντας οὐρανοῦ δἰ ἐπιθυμίαν. ἑάλωσαν γάρ, οὐχὶ κατέβησαν: τί γὰρ ἔπραττεν ἐκεῖ αὕτη ἡ νόσος, εἰ μή τις ἐκεῖ τοιοῦτος ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν; διὰ τοῦτο ἔφην: Ὀλίγον ἐγκράτειαν ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, καὶ τοῦ βίου μὴ ἐρασθῶμεν ἀλλ̓ αἰώνων τῶν ἀνωτέρων, ἐκεῖ εὑρεθησόμεθα ὅπου ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν: δοκεῖ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, τὸν τὰ ἀφανῆ ἰδεῖν δυνάμενον. καὶ γὰρ λέγεται: Νοῦς ὁρᾷ, καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει. ταῦτά σοι ὀλίγα δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ γέγραφα, ὅτι ἑκάστη λέξις νοῦς ἐστιν: καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀναγνοὺς αἰσθήσῃ.
Parallels from Volker:
Epistle 366: 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 (Θεοῦ μετουσία). For not to be corrupted, is to have part with God; just as to be corrupted is the companionship of the world ( τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία). Continency is denial of the body, and confession to God (ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν).

Stromata 5.10.64.1: For he who has not the knowledge of good is wicked: for there is one good, the Father; and to be ignorant of the Father is death, as to know Him is eternal life, through participation in the power of the incorrupt One (κατὰ μετουσίαν τῆς τοῦ ἀφθάρτου δυνάμεως). And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity; but revolt from the knowledge of God brings corruption (καὶ τὸ μὲν μὴ φθείρεσθαι θειότητος μετέχειν ἐστί, φθορὰν δὲ ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ γνώσεως ἀπόστασις παρέχει).

Stromata 3.1.4.2 Self-discipline means disdain of the body, following obedience to God. (ἐγκράτεια τοίνυν σώματος ὑπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογίαν).
Already there you know Porter's thesis is wrong. This is a Clementine letter not a Valentinian letter. We will continue when I get some time. Porter should have known this before he argued what he put forward.
.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Καλῶς ποιεῖς ὅρους ἡμῖν εὐθεῖς ὁρίζων, ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐγκράτειαν ἴδωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῆς Θεοῦ μετουσία. τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία. ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν. ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, ὁ δὲ μὴ κομισάμενος εἰς καρδίαν τῆς φθορᾶς τὴν νόσον ἔρρωται λοιπὸν πόνῳ παντί, καίπερ ἀποθανὼν μὲν τῷ σώματι, ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. [p. 352] καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι, ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ: καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ ὦτα, ἀλλὰ ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν. ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια. Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν οἷον ἕνεκεν ἀφροδισίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις: γίνεται φθόνος διὰ χρυσίον, καὶ ἀδικήματα μυρία δἰ ἑτέρας ἐπιθυμίας. καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ διαρρήγνυσθαι ὑπερεμπιπλάμενον. καὶ τὸ κρατεῖν τοῦ σώματος ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια, οὐκ ἀγαθὴ οὖσα οὔτε ἀληθής, καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς. πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια. Ἰησοῦς ἐγκράτεια ἐφάνη, καὶ γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ κοῦφος γενόμενος. οὔτε γὰρ γῆ ἐβάστασεν αὐτόν, οὔτε πελάγη, ἀλλ̓ ὥσπερ ἐπάτησεν θάλασσαν, οὕτως οὐκ ἐβάρησεν τὴν γῆν. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φθορὰν μὴ ἔχειν τὸ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως, οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα: τοσαύτη ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἐγκράτεια [p. 354] δύναμις ἦν, ὥστε μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Ὀλίγον τι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐὰν ᾖ ἐγκράτεια, ἀνώτεροι ἁπάντων ἐσμέν. καὶ γὰρ ἀγγέλους ἠκούσαμεν ἀκρατεῖς γεγονέναι κατασπασθέντας οὐρανοῦ δἰ ἐπιθυμίαν. ἑάλωσαν γάρ, οὐχὶ κατέβησαν: τί γὰρ ἔπραττεν ἐκεῖ αὕτη ἡ νόσος, εἰ μή τις ἐκεῖ τοιοῦτος ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν; διὰ τοῦτο ἔφην: Ὀλίγον ἐγκράτειαν ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, καὶ τοῦ βίου μὴ ἐρασθῶμεν ἀλλ̓ αἰώνων τῶν ἀνωτέρων, ἐκεῖ εὑρεθησόμεθα ὅπου ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν: δοκεῖ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, τὸν τὰ ἀφανῆ ἰδεῖν δυνάμενον. καὶ γὰρ λέγεται: Νοῦς ὁρᾷ, καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει. ταῦτά σοι ὀλίγα δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ γέγραφα, ὅτι ἑκάστη λέξις νοῦς ἐστιν: καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀναγνοὺς αἰσθήσῃ.
Epistle 66 Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν οἷον ἕνεκεν ἀφροδισίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις

Stromata 3.7.59.1 ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐ μόνον περί τι ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν συνορᾶν προσήκει, τουτέστι τὰ ἀφροδίσια, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα σπαταλῶσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις,
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

So Volker couldn't find a Clementine parallel for:
ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, ὁ δὲ μὴ κομισάμενος εἰς καρδίαν τῆς φθορᾶς τὴν νόσον ἔρρωται λοιπὸν πόνῳ παντί, καίπερ ἀποθανὼν μὲν τῷ σώματι, ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι, ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ: καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ ὦτα, ἀλλὰ ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν. ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια.
Let's see if computers can help us later. What about this?

Epistle 366 ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ (God seems to me to be continency, because He desires nothing, but has all things in Himself)

Stromata 7.13.81.1 ἓν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο ὧν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται, μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖν, μηδένα μισεῖν (For this also is one of the things which God wishes, to covet nothing, to hate no one).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Back to Volker. This is most interesting:
Καλῶς ποιεῖς ὅρους ἡμῖν εὐθεῖς ὁρίζων, ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐγκράτειαν ἴδωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῆς Θεοῦ μετουσία. τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία. ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν. ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, ὁ δὲ μὴ κομισάμενος εἰς καρδίαν τῆς φθορᾶς τὴν νόσον ἔρρωται λοιπὸν πόνῳ παντί, καίπερ ἀποθανὼν μὲν τῷ σώματι, ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. [p. 352] καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι, ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ: καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ ὦτα, ἀλλὰ ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν. ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια. Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν οἷον ἕνεκεν ἀφροδισίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις: γίνεται φθόνος διὰ χρυσίον, καὶ ἀδικήματα μυρία δἰ ἑτέρας ἐπιθυμίας. καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ διαρρήγνυσθαι ὑπερεμπιπλάμενον. καὶ τὸ κρατεῖν τοῦ σώματος ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια, οὐκ ἀγαθὴ οὖσα οὔτε ἀληθής, καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς. πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια. Ἰησοῦς ἐγκράτεια ἐφάνη, καὶ γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ κοῦφος γενόμενος. οὔτε γὰρ γῆ ἐβάστασεν αὐτόν, οὔτε πελάγη, ἀλλ̓ ὥσπερ ἐπάτησεν θάλασσαν, οὕτως οὐκ ἐβάρησεν τὴν γῆν. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φθορὰν μὴ ἔχειν τὸ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως, οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα: τοσαύτη ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἐγκράτεια [p. 354] δύναμις ἦν, ὥστε μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Ὀλίγον τι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐὰν ᾖ ἐγκράτεια, ἀνώτεροι ἁπάντων ἐσμέν. καὶ γὰρ ἀγγέλους ἠκούσαμεν ἀκρατεῖς γεγονέναι κατασπασθέντας οὐρανοῦ δἰ ἐπιθυμίαν. ἑάλωσαν γάρ, οὐχὶ κατέβησαν: τί γὰρ ἔπραττεν ἐκεῖ αὕτη ἡ νόσος, εἰ μή τις ἐκεῖ τοιοῦτος ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν; διὰ τοῦτο ἔφην: Ὀλίγον ἐγκράτειαν ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, καὶ τοῦ βίου μὴ ἐρασθῶμεν ἀλλ̓ αἰώνων τῶν ἀνωτέρων, ἐκεῖ εὑρεθησόμεθα ὅπου ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν: δοκεῖ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, τὸν τὰ ἀφανῆ ἰδεῖν δυνάμενον. καὶ γὰρ λέγεται: Νοῦς ὁρᾷ, καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει. ταῦτά σοι ὀλίγα δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ γέγραφα, ὅτι ἑκάστη λέξις νοῦς ἐστιν: καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀναγνοὺς αἰσθήσῃ.
Epistle 366 καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ διαρρήγνυσθαι ὑπερεμπιπλάμενον. καὶ τὸ κρατεῖν τοῦ σώματος ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια, οὐκ ἀγαθὴ οὖσα οὔτε ἀληθής, καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς ( Not to be drunken is continency. Not to overeat one's self is continency. To subdue the body is continency, and to keep evil thoughts in subjection, whenever the soul is disturbed by any fancy false and bad, and the heart is distracted by vain cares).

Stromata 3.7.59.2 ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν ἀργυρίου καταφρονεῖν, τρυφῆς, κτήσεως, θέας καταμεγαλοφρονεῖν, στόματος κρατεῖν, κυριεύειν λογισμῶν τῶν πονηρῶν. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἄγγελοί τινες ἀκρατεῖς γενόμενοι ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἁλόντες οὐρανόθεν δεῦρο καταπεπτώκασιν. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἄγγελοί τινες ἀκρατεῖς γενόμενοι ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἁλόντες οὐρανόθεν δεῦρο καταπεπτώκασιν (Self-control means indifference to money, comfort, and property, a mind above spectacles, control of the tongue, mastery of evil thoughts. It actually happened that some angels suffered a failure of self-control, were overpowered by sexual desire, and fell from heaven to earth).
Porter claims that this section which precedes the actual citation of Valentinus is also Valentinus noting that Clement has a weird way of citing passages out of order. I've noticed this before but I don't think his explanation is correct. It is enough to note that the material in red appears later in Epistle 366.

This section from Epistle 366 is not matched with Clement "καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς."

What do we make of the change from "στόματος κρατεῖν" to "σώματος ἐγκράτειά"? Letter 366 clearly preserves the original reading.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Καλῶς ποιεῖς ὅρους ἡμῖν εὐθεῖς ὁρίζων, ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐγκράτειαν ἴδωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῆς Θεοῦ μετουσία. τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία. ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν. ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, ὁ δὲ μὴ κομισάμενος εἰς καρδίαν τῆς φθορᾶς τὴν νόσον ἔρρωται λοιπὸν πόνῳ παντί, καίπερ ἀποθανὼν μὲν τῷ σώματι, ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. [p. 352] καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι, ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ: καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ ὦτα, ἀλλὰ ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν. ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια. Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν οἷον ἕνεκεν ἀφροδισίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις: γίνεται φθόνος διὰ χρυσίον, καὶ ἀδικήματα μυρία δἰ ἑτέρας ἐπιθυμίας. καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ διαρρήγνυσθαι ὑπερεμπιπλάμενον. καὶ τὸ κρατεῖν τοῦ σώματος ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια, οὐκ ἀγαθὴ οὖσα οὔτε ἀληθής, καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς. πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια. Ἰησοῦς ἐγκράτεια ἐφάνη, καὶ γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ κοῦφος γενόμενος. οὔτε γὰρ γῆ ἐβάστασεν αὐτόν, οὔτε πελάγη, ἀλλ̓ ὥσπερ ἐπάτησεν θάλασσαν, οὕτως οὐκ ἐβάρησεν τὴν γῆν. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φθορὰν μὴ ἔχειν τὸ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως, οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα: τοσαύτη ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἐγκράτεια [p. 354] δύναμις ἦν, ὥστε μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Ὀλίγον τι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐὰν ᾖ ἐγκράτεια, ἀνώτεροι ἁπάντων ἐσμέν. καὶ γὰρ ἀγγέλους ἠκούσαμεν ἀκρατεῖς γεγονέναι κατασπασθέντας οὐρανοῦ δἰ ἐπιθυμίαν. ἑάλωσαν γάρ, οὐχὶ κατέβησαν: τί γὰρ ἔπραττεν ἐκεῖ αὕτη ἡ νόσος, εἰ μή τις ἐκεῖ τοιοῦτος ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν; διὰ τοῦτο ἔφην: Ὀλίγον ἐγκράτειαν ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, καὶ τοῦ βίου μὴ ἐρασθῶμεν ἀλλ̓ αἰώνων τῶν ἀνωτέρων, ἐκεῖ εὑρεθησόμεθα ὅπου ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν: δοκεῖ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, τὸν τὰ ἀφανῆ ἰδεῖν δυνάμενον. καὶ γὰρ λέγεται: Νοῦς ὁρᾷ, καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει. ταῦτά σοι ὀλίγα δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ γέγραφα, ὅτι ἑκάστη λέξις νοῦς ἐστιν: καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀναγνοὺς αἰσθήσῃ.
Volker can't find a match for this:

Epistle 366 πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια (Continency makes men free, being at once a medicine and a power, for it does not teach temperance; it gives it. Continency is a grace of God)

But there seems to be some sort of relationship with:

Stromata 3.5.41.3 (εἰ δὲ τὸ ἀδεὲς ἑκάτερος ἔχει, ὅ τε ἀκρασίαν ὅ τε ἐγκράτειαν ἑλόμενος, ἀλλὰ τὸ σεμνὸν οὐχ ὅμοιον. ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἡδονὰς ἐξοκείλας σώματι χαρίζεται, ὁ δὲ σώφρων τὴν κυρίαν τοῦ σώματος ψυχὴν ἐλευθεροῖ τῶν παθῶν. κἂν ἐπ' ἐλευθερίᾳ κεκλῆσθαι λέγωσιν ἡμᾶς, μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκὶ παρέχωμεν κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον). Neither has occasion for fear from the choice of license or discipline; but they are not held in the same respect. The person who drifts into pleasures is gratifying his body; the ascetic is freeing his soul from passions, and the soul has authority over the body. If they tell us that we are called to freedom, we are not, as the Apostle puts it, to present that “freedom as an opening for our lower selves")

Yet Volker sees:
πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια.
And takes us back to:
Stromata 3.1.4.2 ἐγκράτεια τοίνυν σώματος ὑπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογίαν. οὐ μόνον γὰρ περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ἃ ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις, ἡ ἐγκράτεια ἀναστρέφεται. ἔστι δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν γλῶσσαν καὶ περὶ τὴν κτῆσιν καὶ περὶ τὴν χρῆσιν καὶ περὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἐγκράτεια. οὐ διδάσκει δ' αὕτη σωφρονεῖν μόνον, ἥ γε παρέχει σωφροσύνην ἡμῖν, δύναμις οὖσα καὶ θεία χάρις (Self-discipline means disdain of the body, following obedience to God. Self-discipline applies, not just to sexual matters, but to everything else for which the soul lusts improperly, because it is not satisfied with the bare necessities. Self-discipline applies to speech, possessions and their use, desire generally. It is not just that it teaches us self-control. It offers us the gift of self-control, a divine power and grace of God).
I think Volker is right. There seems to be the blending together of two Clementine passages - 3.1.4.2 and 3.5.2 - 4. For what reason I have no idea but Volker has a better explanation than Porter.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Καλῶς ποιεῖς ὅρους ἡμῖν εὐθεῖς ὁρίζων, ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐγκράτειαν ἴδωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῆς Θεοῦ μετουσία. τὸ γὰρ μὴ φθείρεσθαι Θεοῦ μετέχειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ τὸ φθείρεσθαι βίου μετουσία. ἐγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν. ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: καὶ Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὔτε ζῆλον ἔχουσα οὔτε φθόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρῶν σώματος ἑτέρῳ διαφθονεῖται, ὁ δὲ μὴ κομισάμενος εἰς καρδίαν τῆς φθορᾶς τὴν νόσον ἔρρωται λοιπὸν πόνῳ παντί, καίπερ ἀποθανὼν μὲν τῷ σώματι, ζῶν δὲ τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. [p. 352] καί μοι τελείως καταμανθάνοντι, ἐγκράτεια δοκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὅτι μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ: καὶ οὐδενὸς ὀρέγεται, οὐδὲ ἔχει πάθος περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ ὦτα, ἀλλὰ ἀνενδεὴς ὤν, πλήρης δἰ ὅλου ἐστίν. ἐπιθυμία νόσος ἐστὶ ψυχῆς, ὑγεία δὲ ἐγκράτεια. Οὐ μόνον δὲ περὶ ἓν εἶδος τὴν ἐγκράτειαν δεῖ ὁρᾷν οἷον ἕνεκεν ἀφροδισίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ κακῶς, οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις: γίνεται φθόνος διὰ χρυσίον, καὶ ἀδικήματα μυρία δἰ ἑτέρας ἐπιθυμίας. καὶ τὸ μὴ μεθύειν ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ διαρρήγνυσθαι ὑπερεμπιπλάμενον. καὶ τὸ κρατεῖν τοῦ σώματος ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν λογισμῶν πονηρῶν, ποσάκις ἐτάραξεν ψυχὴν ἔννοια, οὐκ ἀγαθὴ οὖσα οὔτε ἀληθής, καὶ καρδίαν ἐμέρισεν εἰς πολλὰ φροντίζειν κενῶς. πάντως ἐλευθεροῖ ἡ ἐγκράτεια, ἅμα θεραπεύουσα καὶ δύναμις οὖσα: οὐ γὰρ διδάσκει σωφροσύνην, ἀλλὰ παρέχει. Χάρις ἐστὶν Θεοῦ ἐγκράτεια. Ἰησοῦς ἐγκράτεια ἐφάνη, καὶ γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ κοῦφος γενόμενος. οὔτε γὰρ γῆ ἐβάστασεν αὐτόν, οὔτε πελάγη, ἀλλ̓ ὥσπερ ἐπάτησεν θάλασσαν, οὕτως οὐκ ἐβάρησεν τὴν γῆν. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φθορὰν μὴ ἔχειν τὸ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως, οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα: τοσαύτη ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἐγκράτεια [p. 354] δύναμις ἦν, ὥστε μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Ὀλίγον τι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐὰν ᾖ ἐγκράτεια, ἀνώτεροι ἁπάντων ἐσμέν. καὶ γὰρ ἀγγέλους ἠκούσαμεν ἀκρατεῖς γεγονέναι κατασπασθέντας οὐρανοῦ δἰ ἐπιθυμίαν. ἑάλωσαν γάρ, οὐχὶ κατέβησαν: τί γὰρ ἔπραττεν ἐκεῖ αὕτη ἡ νόσος, εἰ μή τις ἐκεῖ τοιοῦτος ὀφθαλμὸς ἦν; διὰ τοῦτο ἔφην: Ὀλίγον ἐγκράτειαν ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, καὶ τοῦ βίου μὴ ἐρασθῶμεν ἀλλ̓ αἰώνων τῶν ἀνωτέρων, ἐκεῖ εὑρεθησόμεθα ὅπου ἀναπέμπομεν τὸν νοῦν: δοκεῖ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι τοῦτον, τὸν τὰ ἀφανῆ ἰδεῖν δυνάμενον. καὶ γὰρ λέγεται: Νοῦς ὁρᾷ, καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει. ταῦτά σοι ὀλίγα δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ γέγραφα, ὅτι ἑκάστη λέξις νοῦς ἐστιν: καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀναγνοὺς αἰσθήσῃ.
Epistle 366 θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως, οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα: τοσαύτη ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἐγκράτεια δύναμις ἦν, ὥστε μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν.

Stromata 3.7.59.3 Οὐαλεντῖνος δὲ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀγαθόποδα ἐπιστολῇ πάντα φησὶν ὑπομείνας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν· θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα. τοσαύτη ἦν αὐτῷ ἐγκρατείας δύναμις ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Christoph Markschies basically agrees with my assessment.
Die Frage nach Textbestand und Länge des Fragmentes stellt sich vor allem deswegen , weil die beiden Sätze Valentins auch noch in einem ganz anderen Kontext anonym überliefert werden. L. Früchtel wies in seinen Anmerkungen zur Stählinschen Clemensausgabe auf die engen textlichen Berührungen zwi- schen einem Basilius v . Cäsarea zugeschriebenen Brief und der Passage , in der Clemens das Fragment zitiert , hin2. Schon die Definition der Enkrateia , die am Beginn dieses Briefes an den Mönch Urbicius3 steht , berührt sich eng mit den Worten durch die Clemens die Enthaltsamkeit charakterisiert " :

» Εγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν « .

Während für eine Reihe anderer Sätze des Briefes nur vergleichsweise nahe Parallelen bei Clemens genannt werden können oder gar nur seine Gedanken frei aufgegriffen sind , werden die Valentin - Sätze überraschend wörtlich mitgeteilt . Lediglich ein Satz über die Engel , der bei Clemens dem Zitat vorausgeht , wird umgestellt , wie ein Vergleich der Texte zeigt7 :

Aufälligerweise gibt der Autor des Briefes überhaupt nicht an , daß er aus der Schrift eines zu damaliger Zeit bereits mehrfach anathematisierten Ketzers zi- tiert . Im Gegenteil : Das Zitat des Häretikers wird viel wörtlicher mitgeteilt als andere Clemens - Sätze . Daran muß man natürlich sofort die Frage anschließen , ob Ps . - Basilius hier wirklich aus den › Stromateis ‹ exzerpiert - so hatten ja Völker und Früchtel die Parallelen interpretiert . Oder lag dem Autor noch der Brief selbst bzw. ein längerer Valentintext als Clemens vor ? Das muß man wohl verneinen : Am leichtesten läßt sich der Befund immer noch als Exzerpt des Ps . - Basilius aus Clemens erklären12 . Denn fast alle Formu- lierungen , die miteinander verwandt sind , stammen aus zwei kleinen Textpassa- gen bei Clemens . Zwischen diesen Partien stehen ausführliche Exkurse des Alexandriners , die Positionen der Karpokratianer , Marcioniten und der griechi- schen Philosophen zu Ehe und Zeugung darstellen 13. Diese Exkurse hat der Autor des Briefes an den Mönch Urbicius ausgelassen . Formulierungen , daß Enkrateia » Θεοῦ μετουσία « sei , bzw. » Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ « 14 , können am besten als zusammenfassende Interpretation von einem Platonzitat bei Clemens gedeu- tet werden15 , wie auch andere Gedanken des Ps . - Basilusbriefes 16 : Die Bezüge auf Clemens sind so explizit Ps . - Basilius habe als "Mosaik von augeschriebenen Clemens-Stellen" bezeichnete17. Die gegenteilige Position , Ps . - Basilius habe als "Mosaik von augeschriebenen Clemens-Stellen" bezeichnete17. Die gegenteilige Position , Ps . - Basilius habe als Quelle nicht nur Clemens vorgelegen , sondern der Brief des Valentin in einer separaten , umfangreicheren Überlieferung , zwingt zu relativ unwahrscheinlichen Schlußfolgerungen. so aus dem Valentinbrief stammte , vor die Zitationsformel gezogen ( III 59,2 ) und als eigenen Gedanken ausgegeben und auch an anderen Stellen seiner Argumentation einfach nur Valentins Gedanken paraphrasiert. Auch chronologisch scheidet diese Lösung eigentlich völlig aus ; bekanntlich bietet Hippolyt , der hundert Jahre , bevor Basilius geboren wurde , starb , als letzter Autor ein direktes Valen- tinzitat ( Frgm . 8 ) ; schon Irenäus Tertullian oder Origenes kannten keine Origi- naltexte des Häretikers mehr18 . Man müßte also annehmen , daß auf irgendeine Weise lediglich hier ein größerer Zusammenhang eines Valentinbriefes überlebt hat , bis er in den Ps . -Basiliusbrief eingefügt wurde . Für ebenso unwahrschein- lich halte ich , daß der Autor des Ps. -Basiliusbriefes das Valentin Zitat anhand des Originalbriefes korrigierte. Die im Brief erwähnte Vorstellung , daß Jesus >> leichter als Erde und Meer war << und deswegen darüber schwebte , verlockt nur auf den ersten Blick dazu , sie Valentin zuzuschreiben Merkwürdig bleibt trotzdem , daß er das Zitat mit solcher Aufmerksamkeit behandelt , ohne seinen Autor zu nennen . Damit bezeugt der Brief , daß man Positionen Valentins in bestimmten Kreisen auch noch längst nach seiner Verurteilung. Leider kennen wir diese Kreise nicht näher , es handelt sich nach Ausweis des Briefes um Enkratiten20 , die eine Christologie vertraten , die doketische Tendenzen zeigte . Ob sie einen Platz in der Spätgeschichte des Valentinianismus die leider in vielen Punkten dunkel bleibt , einnehmen , wissen wir nicht . Die Abgrenzung des Fragmentes bereitet keine Probleme , Clemens leitet es mit einer Zitationsformel ein . Ein hervorgehobenes » usic pèv ouv « 21 markiert den Neuanfang und somit das Ende des Zitates .

Erhebliche sprachliche Schwierigkeiten entstehen bei den ersten Sätzen Z. 2f » πάντα [ φησὶν ] ὑπομείνας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο « , wie Stählin ihn nach dem Handschriftenbefund , gestützt auch auf die Autorität von E. Schwartz , bietet . Wilamowitz empfahl , die Worte » έyxpaths ĥv « ganz zu streichen. Da das Fehlen des Artikels bei » Oɛóτnta « auf den ersten Blick verwun- dert ( s . aber Anm . 23 ) , änderte der Göttinger Kirchenhistoriker J. C. L. Gieseler in » ἐγκρατὴς τὴν θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο « 22 R. A. Lipsius ergänzte ein durch Homoioteleuton entfallenes » v « < , der Satz würde dann lauten : » ñávτa ÚπQμEί- νας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν · ( τὴν ) θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο « 23 . Der von Stählin beibe- haltene Text bleibt besonders mit der Verbindung » θεότητα ( ... ) εἰργάζετα « problematisch ; die sprachlich eleganteste Lösung wäre m . E. die Konjektur : » ( κατὰ τὴν ) θεότητα ( ... ) εἰργάζετο « Darüber kann freilich erst am Ende der Auslegung entschieden werden ( S. 96 f ) .

The question of the composition of the text and the length of the fragment arises primarily because both of Valentin's sentences have also been handed down anonymously in a completely different context. In his comments on Stählin's edition of Clemens, L. Fruchtel pointed to the close textual connections between a Basilius v . the letter attributed to Caesarea and the passage in which Clemens quotes the fragment , hin2. Already the definition of Enkrateia, which is at the beginning of this letter to the monk Urbicius3, is closely related to the words with which Clemens characterizes abstinence ":

» Εγκράτεια γάρ ἐστιν σώματος ἄρνησις καὶ ὁμολογία πρὸς Θεόν « .

While for a number of other sentences in the letter only comparatively close parallels can be mentioned in Clemens, or only his thoughts are freely taken up, the Valentin sentences are surprisingly communicated verbatim. Only one sentence about the angels, which in Clemens precedes the quotation, is changed, as a comparison of the texts shows7:

Strikingly, the author of the letter does not state at all that he is quoting from the writings of a heretic who was already anathematized several times at the time. On the contrary: the quotation from the heretic is communicated much more literally than other statements by Clemens. Of course, one must immediately ask the question whether Ps. - Basilius really excerpted here from the ›stromateis‹ - that's how Völker and Fruchtel had interpreted the parallels. Or did the author still have the letter itself or a longer Valentine's text than Clemens? One must probably deny that: the finding can still be most easily understood as an excerpt of Ps. - Basilius from Clemens explain12. Because almost all formulations that are related to each other come from two small text passages in Clemens. Between these parts there are extensive digressions by the Alexandrian, which present the positions of the Carpocratians, Marcionites and Greek philosophers on marriage and procreation 13. The author of the letter to the monk Urbicius omitted these digressions. Formulations that Enkrateia is " Θεοῦ μετουσία " or " Θεῷ μίσγεσθαι ποιεῖ " 14 can best be interpreted as a summarizing interpretation of a quotation from Plato in Clemens15 , as well as other thoughts of Ps. - Basilusbriefes 16: The references to Clemens are so explicit Ps. - Basilius described it as a "mosaic of written passages from Clemens"17. The opposite position , Ps . - Basilius described it as a "mosaic of written passages from Clemens"17. The opposite position , Ps . - Basilius did not only have Clemens as a source, but the letter of Valentin in a separate, more extensive tradition, forces to relatively improbable conclusions. came from the letter to Valentine, placed in front of the citation formula (III 59.2) and issued as his own thoughts and also simply paraphrased Valentine's thoughts at other points in his argumentation. Chronologically, too, this solution is actually completely out of the question; As is well known, Hippolytus, who died a hundred years before Basil was born, is the last author to offer a direct quotation from Valentine (Frgm. 8); even Irenaeus Tertullian or Origen no longer knew any of the heretic's original texts18. So one would have to assume that in some way only here a larger context of a Valentine letter survived until it is found in Ps. -St. Basil's letter was inserted. I consider it just as improbable that the author of Ps. Basil corrected the Valentine quote based on the original letter. The idea mentioned in the letter that Jesus was " lighter than earth and sea << and therefore hovered over it only at first glance tempts us to attribute it to Valentine. It remains strange, however, that he treats the quote with such attention, without his author to call . The letter thus testifies to the fact that Valentin's positions were held in certain circles long after his conviction. Unfortunately we do not know these circles any better. According to the letter, they are Enkratites20 who represented a Christology that showed Doketic tendencies. Whether they have a place in the later history of Valentinianism, which unfortunately remains obscure on many points, we do not know. The demarcation of the fragment does not cause any problems, Clemens introduces it with a citation formula. A highlighted »usic pèv ouv« 21 marks the new beginning and thus the end of the quote.

Significant linguistic difficulties arise in the first sentences line 2f »πάντα [φησὶν] ὑπομείνας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν θεότητα ἰησοῦς εἰργάετο«, as Stählin offers him based on the manuscript finding. Wilamowitz recommended dropping the words »έyxpaths ĥv« altogether. Since the lack of the article at »Oɛóτnta« at first glance (see note 23), the Göttingen church historian J.C. L. Gieseler changed to »ἐγκρατὴς τὴν θεότα ἰησοῦς εἰργάετο« 22 R. Lipsius added by Homoioteleuton. < , the sentence would then read : » ñávτa ÚπQμEί- νας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν ( τὴν ) θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο « 23 . The text retained by Stählin remains particularly problematic with the connection »θεότητα (...) εἰργάζετα«; the linguistically most elegant solution would be m . E. the conjecture: »(κατὰ τὴν) θεότητα (...) εἰργάζετο« This can of course only be decided at the end of the interpretation (p. 96 f).
Post Reply