mbuckley3 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:39 am
................................
A footnote : your original objection to Clementine authorship was that the theology of Ep.366 seems more Valentinian than Clementine. Do you now agree that this is not the case ? (Otherwise, I struggle to see how you can simultaneously deploy the argument from anachronism using C5/C6 non-Valentinian texts).
I was at the beginning unsure on the point.
I said Porter argues in detail that the letter is theologically more Valentinian than is the teaching of Clement. without being clear how convincing I personally found his arguments.
On reflection I increasingly tend to feel that the letter makes most sense in a context later than either Clement or Valentinus, but I'm still not sure.
It may be that the underlying background is the need felt by many later Christian writers to qualify or flatly disagree with the passage in the Tome of Leo
To be hungry and thirsty, to be weary, and to sleep, is clearly human: but to satisfy 5,000 men with five loaves, and to bestow on the woman of Samaria living water, draughts of which can secure the drinker from thirsting any more, to walk upon the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink, and to quell the risings of the waves by rebuking the winds, is, without any doubt, Divine.
which regards walking on the water purely as a consequence of the divinity of Christ rather than a consequence of the divinization of his human nature.
Many thanks to Andrew for his measured responses, informed and informative. His instincts may well be correct. Certainly the letter in its current form, with surscript, attributing to Basil, as a prince of the church, views relevant to C5/C6 controversies, is a late production. But the caveat remains that Ep.366 could be, in Van Hoof's terms, a 'falsification' rather than a forgery; that an existing text was repurposed as its contents suddenly became relevant.
An (imperfect) analogy, from a period Andrew is more comfortable with than I am, is provided by the history of the use of Zechariah 4.2-3 as a Christian oracle. In the LXX version : "And {the angel} said to me, 'What do you see ?' and I said, I have seen, behold, an all-gold lampstand [λυχνια] and the torch [λαμπαδιον] above it and seven lights [λυχνοι] above it and seven conduits for the lights above it, and two olive trees above it, one on the right of the torch and one on the left."
Obviously, this text was always 'available'. But its first use was not until Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs 3.1, where it is a minor illustration : "So too the two olive trees set on the right and left of the lampstand in the prophet Zechariah are believed to denote the Only-Begotten and the Holy Spirit." Later in the C3, Methodius, Symposium 10.6, devotes a short chapter to it. Again the focus is on the olive trees : they are Christ and the Spirit, who, via their boughs (the Law and the prophets), supply "the spiritual oil of God, that man may have the light of divine knowledge."
It is not until the C5 that the focus changes to the lampstand. Cyril of Alexandria, On Zechariah 2.4 : "We say the golden lampstand [λυχνιαν] is the Church..upon which is the torch [λαμπαδιον], which is to say, Christ." The olive trees are the Jews and Gentiles, united under the light of Christ; but they are a subsidiary part of the image.
In short order, Cyril's contemporary, Proclus of Constantinople, makes a second fundamental change. Contributing to a rapid and general transfer of attributes of the Church to the figure of the virgin Mary, she is now the lampstand. Homily 2.10 :
"Who is this lampstand ? It is holy Mary [τις η λυχνια ; η αγια Μαρια]. Why a lampstand ? Because she bore the immaterial light made flesh. And why is it all of gold ? Because she remained a virgin even after giving birth. And just as the lampstand is not itself the source of the light, but the vehicle of the light, so too, the virgin is not herself God, but God's temple."
This image became a staple of homiletics and iconography in the eastern church. To be clear, what Proclus has done, without recourse to forgery, is 'discover' a 'new' text relevant to the current, highly polemical situation, simply by re-presenting and repurposing an existing (if little-used) text.
I am wondering whether the letter is associated with Evagrius Ponticus (late 4th century). We know that Evagrius studied Clement of Alexandria and at least one of his letters has been wrongly attributed to Basil. See Pseudo-Basil
It is said that those on high possess light bodies, and those below possess heavy [bodies]: and above the former are others who are lighter than they; while below the latter are those heavier than they.
Thus we know that vice is naturally heavy: from the fact that the Lord coming into Egypt is said to be [lightly] seated upon a cloud. (Is 19:1) So a light cloud is the reasoning nature “filled with all” virtue “and knowledge”. (Rom 15:14)
IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,.
If the letter is by Evagrius or a disciple, the idea would be that the virtue and self control of Christ would mean that he would have been manifested in an unusually light body (and could walk on water).
But why would the letter have so many echoes of and verbatim passages from Clement? At what point are we looking for alternatives for the sake of looking for alternatives?
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE LETTER ASSIGNED TO EVAGRIUS PONTICUS. I am aware of it. I just don't have the time. Thanks again Andrew.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:52 am
But why would the letter have so many echoes of and verbatim passages from Clement? At what point are we looking for alternatives for the sake of looking for alternatives?
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE LETTER ASSIGNED TO EVAGRIUS PONTICUS. I am aware of it. I just don't have the time. Thanks again Andrew.
I guess the question now is - HOW CERTAIN is this identification? 100% certain it was Evagrius Ponticus? 90%. 80%. 70%.
Can we live with the same margins of doubt identifying it as by Clement of Alexandria?
What was the methodology used? Was it just the "gut" of someone reading the text or did he put together two or three arguments in favor of the proposition and widespread acceptance followed.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:02 am
I guess the question now is - HOW CERTAIN is this identification? 100% certain it was Evagrius Ponticus? 90%. 80%. 70%.
Can we live with the same margins of doubt identifying it as by Clement of Alexandria?
What was the methodology used? Was it just the "gut" of someone reading the text or did he put together two or three arguments in favor of the proposition and widespread acceptance followed.
In the Syriac collection of the letters of Evagrius this is letter 63. The apparent circumstances of the letter writer fit the life of Evagrius better than Basil. See Theology of Evagrius After Evagrius' condemnation in 553 his works often survived in Greek through attribution to other writers.