A Stromateis of What?

[Secret Alias]

She does translate ܐܓܪܬܐ as "letter"

ܐܓܪܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܠܩܘܠܣܝܐ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܥܕܟܝܠ ܚܙܝܢ ܕܐܤܝܐ ܐܝܬܝܞ . ܐܦ ܩܘܠܣܘܣ . ܘܡܛܠ ܕܐܢܫܝܢ ܡܢ ܝܗܘܕܝܐ

[Secret Alias]

https://archive.org/details/ishodadofme ... 5/mode/2up I was right. The phrase is "in his great letter" = ܒܐܓܪܬܗ ܗܿܝ ܪܒܬܐ. Quite certainly "epistle." Quite specifically:

ܒܐܓܪܬܗ (b'igarta): "In his letter" (ܒ - in, ܐܓܪܬܗ - his letter)
ܗܿܝ (hiy): "is" or "it is"
ܪܒܬܐ (rabbata): "great" (feminine form)

Isho'dad is citing an "epistle" of Clement of Alexandria, not the "book" of the Stromateis, unless the entire third book of the Stromateis is counted as a letter. I will get you the word count but clearly it would be the longest letter in the history of civilization.

[andrewcriddle]

I am extremely hesitant about this suggestion but I wonder if Ishodad of Merv is confusing Clement of Alexandria Stromateis Book 3 with the epistles of (pseudo)-Clement of Rome about Virginity which were originally written in Greek but survive only in Syriac.

This may be totally wrong but I thought it worth mentioning.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

There is a discussion of this puzzling passage here

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

The Stromateis is explicitly cited by Ishodad. With regards to whether there was a collection of letters of Clement of Alexandria circulating in antiquity:

1. the Letter to Theodore (disputed)
2. the reference to a collection of at least 21 letters of Clement of Alexandria in John of Damascus
3. the reference to "the great letter" of Clement referencing material from Stromateis Book 3 in Isho'dad
4. the reference to a letter representing a "pastiche" of references principally from Stromateis Book 3 but also other books of the Stromateis in pseudo-Basil 366.
5. certain phrases in Stromateis Book 3 that suggest they were taken from some sort of "dialogue" with someone Clement is engaging with. (I will provide the references)
6. the fact that Clement must have written epistles to people.

I think the case for the existence of letters of Clement circulating in antiquity is likely.

[Secret Alias]

I will attempt to refute the argument that a newly identified letter attributed to Valentinus is indeed from his pen by demonstrating that the letter's content, style, and theological perspectives align more closely with Clement of Alexandria’s known works, particularly his Stromateis. By using the same evidence provided to argue for Valentinian authorship, I will show that Clementine authorship is a more plausible explanation.

A. The Argument for Valentinian Authorship

Nathan E. Porter, in his analysis, argues that the letter in question contains verbatim parallels with a quotation of Valentinus in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis 3.7.59.3. Porter suggests the following points to support his claim of Valentinian authorship:

1. Coherence of Parallel Passages:

Porter notes that the parallel passages make better sense in the context of the letter attributed to Valentinus than in Clement’s Stromateis. Specifically, the content related to Jesus’s digestive continence and its moral implications appear more coherent and contextually appropriate within the letter. Porter argues that this coherence suggests the letter could be the original source of the material that Clement later adapted, sometimes resulting in less clear or logical sequences in the Stromateis. This implies that the material in the letter is primary, while Clement’s usage may have introduced complexities or discontinuities typical of his citation practices.

2. Valentinian Theology:

The letter contains distinctively Valentinian theological concepts, such as the notions of spiritual bodies and Charis as God’s protological consort. These ideas align with known Valentinian doctrines, where spiritual and physical aspects are intertwined in a way that emphasizes a profound mystical union with the divine. Porter highlights that these theological elements are central to the letter and are reflective of Valentinus's teachings, thereby supporting the argument for Valentinian authorship. This specific theological content strengthens the case that the letter originates from Valentinian thought rather than being an external source adapted by Clement.

3. Grammatical Differences:

Porter points out that grammatical errors present in Clement’s text are absent in the letter. This discrepancy suggests that Clement might have been excerpting and adapting the material, leading to potential grammatical inconsistencies in his work. The smoother and more coherent grammar in the letter implies that it may be the original text, from which Clement borrowed and possibly misquoted or altered the phrasing. This grammatical analysis supports the idea that the letter predates Clement's adaptations, making it more likely to be an authentic work of Valentinus.

4. Textual Evidence:

Additional textual evidence is presented to argue that the letter represents an original version of the material later used by Clement. Porter examines similarities in phrasing, structure, and thematic content between the letter and Clement’s writings, suggesting that Clement might have had access to the letter or a similar source. This evidence, combined with the previous points, leads Porter to conclude that the letter could be an authentic work of Valentinus, used by Clement as a source for his theological discussions.

In Summa: While Nathan E. Porter's argument for Valentinian authorship is well-structured and draws on significant textual and thematic parallels, a closer examination reveals that these same points can be interpreted to support Clementine authorship. The coherence of parallel passages, the presence of distinct theological concepts, grammatical differences, and textual evidence can all be seen as indicative of Clement’s practice of integrating and adapting existing materials into his broader theological framework. Therefore, it is plausible that the letter in question, rather than being an original work of Valentinus, aligns more closely with Clement’s known methods and theological interests, suggesting that it is indeed a work of Clement of Alexandria.

B. Counterargument: Evidence for Clementine Authorship

Using the same points presented by Porter, I will argue that the letter is more likely to be a work of Clement of Alexandria, reflecting his theological and stylistic tendencies.

1. Coherence of Parallel Passages

While Porter argues that the passages are more coherent in the letter, this can be attributed to Clement’s known practice of adapting and recontextualizing sources to fit his theological framework. As Annewies van den Hoek’s study on Clement’s citation practices shows, Clement frequently quotes, paraphrases, and intersperses material from other sources, often leading to discontinuities and recontextualizations. The seeming incoherence in the Stromateis could thus result from Clement’s method of integrating the material into his broader theological arguments.

In the context of Clement’s works, it is common to find quotations that seem less coherent due to his method of integrating and reinterpreting various sources to fit his overarching theological agenda. This practice often results in passages that appear disjointed or out of place when compared to their original context. Therefore, the coherence observed in the letter might not necessarily indicate its originality but rather Clement’s ability to adapt and reframe existing material to serve his theological purposes.

2. Valentinian Theology

The presence of themes like spiritual bodies and Charis in the letter does not necessarily indicate Valentinian authorship. Clement’s works, particularly the Stromateis, exhibit a wide engagement with various theological perspectives, including Gnostic and Valentinian ideas, which he often incorporates and refutes. The theological content in the letter could be Clement’s engagement with and adaptation of these ideas rather than an indication of the letter's original Valentinian origin.

Clement’s engagement with a broad spectrum of theological ideas is well-documented. He often incorporated elements of Gnostic and Valentinian thought into his writings, not to endorse them but to provide a comprehensive critique and synthesis from a Christian perspective. The presence of Valentinian concepts in the letter could thus reflect Clement’s method of engaging with and refuting these ideas by integrating them into his own theological framework.

3. Grammatical Differences

The grammatical errors noted by Porter in Clement’s text, which are absent in the letter, can be explained by Clement’s tendency to paraphrase and modify his sources. Clement’s writings often contain variations and adaptations of earlier texts, which could introduce grammatical inconsistencies. The smoother grammar in the letter suggests it might be the source material that Clement later adapted, but it also aligns with his tendency to refine and incorporate diverse theological ideas into his cohesive system.

Clement’s adaptation process often involved paraphrasing and modifying his sources to align with his theological objectives. This practice could lead to grammatical inconsistencies in his texts. The absence of such errors in the letter might indicate that it represents a more polished version of the material that Clement later reworked. This aligns with Clement’s known habit of refining and integrating diverse theological ideas into a cohesive system, which sometimes resulted in grammatical variations.

4. Textual Evidence

The additional textual evidence provided by Porter, suggesting that the letter has the original version of the material, can also support the argument for Clementine authorship. Clement’s extensive engagement with a wide range of sources means that he could have drawn from a letter like this, adapting it for his purposes. This would be consistent with his method of using existing texts as a foundation for his theological discourse.

Clement’s extensive engagement with various sources is a hallmark of his scholarly approach. He often used existing texts as a foundation for his theological discourse, adapting and reinterpreting them to fit his arguments. The textual evidence suggesting that the letter contains the original material later used by Clement supports the idea that he could have drawn from such a source. This would be consistent with his method of integrating diverse theological ideas into his works.

In Summa: The argument for Valentinian authorship of the letter relies on the coherence of the parallel passages, the presence of Valentinian theology, grammatical differences, and additional textual evidence. However, these same points can be interpreted to support Clementine authorship. Clement’s known practices of citation, adaptation, and engagement with various theological ideas suggest that he could have used and recontextualized material from a letter similar to the one in question. Thus, the letter’s content, style, and theological perspectives align more closely with Clement’s known works, making Clementine authorship a more plausible explanation.

Conclusion

The argument for Valentinian authorship of the letter relies on several key points: the coherence of the parallel passages, the presence of Valentinian theology, grammatical differences, and additional textual evidence. However, these same points can be interpreted to support Clementine authorship. Clement’s known practices of citation, adaptation, and engagement with various theological ideas suggest that he could have used and recontextualized material from a letter similar to the one in question. Thus, the letter’s content, style, and theological perspectives align more closely with Clement’s known works, making Clementine authorship a more plausible explanation.

Coherence of Parallel Passages

While Porter argues that the passages are more coherent in the letter, this can be attributed to Clement’s known practice of adapting and recontextualizing sources to fit his theological framework. As Annewies van den Hoek’s study on Clement’s citation practices shows, Clement frequently quotes, paraphrases, and intersperses material from other sources, often leading to discontinuities and recontextualizations. The seeming incoherence in the Stromateis could thus result from Clement’s method of integrating the material into his broader theological arguments.

In the context of Clement’s works, it is common to find quotations that seem less coherent due to his method of integrating and reinterpreting various sources to fit his overarching theological agenda. This practice often results in passages that appear disjointed or out of place when compared to their original context. Therefore, the coherence observed in the letter might not necessarily indicate its originality but rather Clement’s ability to adapt and reframe existing material to serve his theological purposes.

Valentinian Theology

The presence of themes like spiritual bodies and Charis in the letter does not necessarily indicate Valentinian authorship. Clement’s works, particularly the Stromateis, exhibit a wide engagement with various theological perspectives, including Gnostic and Valentinian ideas, which he often incorporates and refutes. The theological content in the letter could be Clement’s engagement with and adaptation of these ideas rather than an indication of the letter's original Valentinian origin.

Clement’s engagement with a broad spectrum of theological ideas is well-documented. He often incorporated elements of Gnostic and Valentinian thought into his writings, not to endorse them but to provide a comprehensive critique and synthesis from a Christian perspective. The presence of Valentinian concepts in the letter could thus reflect Clement’s method of engaging with and refuting these ideas by integrating them into his own theological framework.

Grammatical Differences

The grammatical errors noted by Porter in Clement’s text, which are absent in the letter, can be explained by Clement’s tendency to paraphrase and modify his sources. Clement’s writings often contain variations and adaptations of earlier texts, which could introduce grammatical inconsistencies. The smoother grammar in the letter suggests it might be the source material that Clement later adapted, but it also aligns with his tendency to refine and incorporate diverse theological ideas into his cohesive system.

Clement’s adaptation process often involved paraphrasing and modifying his sources to align with his theological objectives. This practice could lead to grammatical inconsistencies in his texts. The absence of such errors in the letter might indicate that it represents a more polished version of the material that Clement later reworked. This aligns with Clement’s known habit of refining and integrating diverse theological ideas into a cohesive system, which sometimes resulted in grammatical variations.

Textual Evidence

The additional textual evidence provided by Porter, suggesting that the letter has the original version of the material, can also support the argument for Clementine authorship. Clement’s extensive engagement with a wide range of sources means that he could have drawn from a letter like this, adapting it for his purposes. This would be consistent with his method of using existing texts as a foundation for his theological discourse.

Clement’s extensive engagement with various sources is a hallmark of his scholarly approach. He often used existing texts as a foundation for his theological discourse, adapting and reinterpreting them to fit his arguments. The textual evidence suggesting that the letter contains the original material later used by Clement supports the idea that he could have drawn from such a source. This would be consistent with his method of integrating diverse theological ideas into his works.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, the coherence of parallel passages, the presence of distinct theological concepts, grammatical differences, and textual evidence can all be seen as indicative of Clement’s practice of integrating and adapting existing materials into his broader theological framework. Clement’s known practices of citation, adaptation, and engagement with various theological ideas suggest that he could have used and recontextualized material from a letter similar to the one in question. Thus, the letter’s content, style, and theological perspectives align more closely with Clement’s known works, making Clementine authorship a more plausible explanation. This analysis highlights the importance of considering Clement's methods and tendencies in the broader context of his work and the theological landscape of his time.

[Secret Alias]

A comparative analysis of Greek and Syriac texts concerning the themes of marriage and ministry among the apostles, with a focus on the writings of Clement of Alexandria and their citation by Ishodad of Merv. By juxtaposing relevant passages from both traditions, we explore the theological and cultural emphases inherent in each text. The analysis reveals shared concerns about apostolic purity and women's roles in ministry, while also highlighting distinctive interpretative approaches and emphases.

Isho'dad of Merv Commentary on Mark:

Mark , however , as Clement testifies , was the son of Peter ; for he , Clement , says in that great letter of his against those who reject Marriage , enumerating the Apostles who were married in the world , and after they became disciples of our Lord they kept purity and preserved sanctity ; as Moses also and others , who , after they were thought worthy of the Divine Revelation , removed themselves from wedlock and preserved sanctity; for this one [Clement] says "Oh do they also reject the Apostles? for Peter and Philip even begat children; and Paul did not neglect to salute his spouse in his Epistle, but he did not lead her about with him on account of the decorum of the service." Some people, however have handed down, about what is written in Acts, saying that after Peter was delivered from the prison by means of the Angel and came to the house of Mary the Mother of John, whose surname was Mark, that this Mary was the wife of Simon, and Mark was his son, and Rhoda his daughter; and they say that Peter mentions him in his first Epistle, which he wrote from the city of Rome which he describes as in a parable and calls it Babylon because of its greatness and its opulence: "the elect church which is at Babylon" he says "saluteth you and Marcus my son." But Simon Magus was a Samaritan by race; from a village whose name was Gentnin; and Simeon was his name from of old but afterwards he was called by Peter Simon. Now when this [man] was exposed by Peter in Samaria, he fled the country of the Romans; and there he returned to his vomit in the days of Claudius Caesar; and by means of signs of his sorcery he became very famous; and it was thought that he was a god, and he set up a statue to himself as to a god at the side of a river called the Tiber, between the two bridges; both to him and to a certain woman whose name was Selena, who travelled about with him wherever he went who of old had practiced fornication in Tyre of Phoenicia; but Peter after he had escaped from that prison went to Antioch and in that very year laid the foundations of the church of Antioch and was made there an altar and commanded that they should worship toward the East; and [told] on that first day of the week our Lord dwelt in the Virgin and on it shall be the Resurrection on the last day. After two years on hearing of what Simon did at Rome, he appointed Evodios bishop at Antioch instead of him[self] and he ruled for twenty five years. He pursued and flew to Rome after Simon and found a dog at the door of Simon's palace; and said to it, "Go in and tell Simon that behold! Simeon is at the door." And Simon spoke into the ear of an ox and it split, but Peter made it whole; and afterwards his [Simon's] followers requested him to do some sign before this Galilean; and there happened to be a dead man, the son of Cyphrinus, one of the prefects of the city; and Simon came near to his bed and said many things aloud and in secret, and the dead man did not rise; and in the same hour Peter came and cried with a loud voice "in the name of Jesus the Christ who was crucified at Jerusalem rise from the bed" and with his word the dead man lived; and the Romans rose up to stone Simon; and he was angry and said to them "Because ye have rejected me I go to my Father who is in heaven" and he shewed before Peter the assembly something like a car that came and caught him away and raised him gradually; and after the amazement of the spectators Peter was troubled and rebuked the demons by the sign of the Cross and immediately they left him and let him go so he fell upon the earth and was broken in pieces and died. Then that crowd praised God and heaped up many stones over his corpse. Then Peter at once planted a church in Rome and ruled it for twenty-five years. But at the time the wicked Nero Caesar commanded him to be crucified head downwards he appointed instead of him a deacon whose name was Linus him whom the Apostle mentions in his Second Epistle to Timothy and after him Clemens for nine years. But at the time Peter ruled the church of Rome he had a thought of going to the heavenly places and the believers being excited about this begged him to make for them the teaching of the Gospel in a Book and after they had entreated him further he yielded to their persuasion and because the Gospel of Matthew was previous lest it should be supposed that he had done thing because he was not pleased with that he commanded Mark to describe to them in a Book the habits of the Lord and his deeds and words leaving many things out from it, and only endeavouring to write with great research the affairs of Peter s denial and such like. He incited him to do this; and because Simon had preached there that our Lord had not been incarnated, because of this, he endeavoured to write about what concerned His humanity. After this he went first to Egypt and preached there and found the church at Alexandria.

Clement Stromateis 3.51.2 - 53.2

The blessed Paul says of those who show a distaste for marriage: “In the last times people will abandon the faith, attaching themselves to deceitful spirits and the teachings of daemonic powers that they should abstain from food, at the same time forbidding marriage.” Again he says, “Do not let anyone disqualify you in forced piety of self-mortification and severity to the body.” The same author writes these words: “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a dissolution. Have you been divorced? Do not go looking for a wife.” Again he says, “Every man should have his own wife to protect him from temptation by Satan.” Well? Did not the righteous of past days share gratefully in God’s creation? Some of them married and produced children without loss of self-control. The ravens brought bread and meat as food to Elijah. The prophet Samuel brought the leftovers from the haunch which had provided him with a meal and gave it to Saul to eat. They claim to be their superiors in lifestyle, but they will never remotely be able to match their praxis. So “if anyone refrains from eating, he is not to denigrate one who eats. If anyone eats, he is not to judge one who abstains, since God has accepted him.” Furthermore, the Lord says of himself, “John came abstaining from food and drink, and they say, ‘He is possessed.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him, a greedy drunkard, a friend of tax officers, a sinner!’” Are they not criticizing the apostles? Peter and Philip produced children, and Philip gave his daughters away in marriages. In one of his letters Paul has no hesitation in addressing his “yokefellow.” He did not take her around with him for the convenience of his ministry. He says in one of his letters, “Do we not have the authority to take around a wife from the Church, like the other apostles?” But the apostles in conformity with their ministry concentrated on undistracted preaching, and took their wives around as Christian sisters rather than spouses, to be their fellow-ministers in relation to housewives, through whom the Lord’s teaching penetrated into the women’s quarters without scandal. We know the dispositions made over women deacons by the admirable Paul in his second letter to Timothy.

This investigation explores the thematic and textual parallels between Greek and Syriac texts on the topics of apostolic marriage and ministry, focusing on the writings of Clement of Alexandria and their citation by Ishodad of Merv. By examining relevant passages from Clement's Stromateis and Ishodad's commentary, we assess the possibility that the Stromateis incorporates elements from a lost "great letter" of Clement. This analysis includes a linguistic comparison to identify verbatim or closely resembling passages and considers the implications for understanding the apostolic practices and theological reflections in early Christianity.

Introduction

Early Christian literature provides rich insights into the lives and teachings of the apostles. Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis and the Syriac commentary by Ishodad of Merv both address issues of apostolic marriage and ministry. This paper aims to compare these texts to uncover potential overlaps and explore the theological and cultural emphases inherent in each. Particularly, we examine whether Clement's Stromateis might be a pastiche of lost letters, as suggested by Ishodad's reference to a "great letter" of Clement.

Texts for Comparison

Syriac Text (Ishodad of Merv)

1. ܒܐܓܪܬܗ ܗܿܝ ܪܒܬܐ : ܠܘܩܒܠ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܣܠܝܢ ܙܘܘܓܐ
2. ܟܕ ܣܕܪ ܠܫܠܝܚ̈ܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܙܕܘܓܘܐ ܒܥܠܡܐ
3. ܘܒܬܪ ܕܐܬܬܠܡܕܘ ܠܡܪܢ ܢܛܪܘ ܕܟܝܘܬܐ ܡܘܢܛܪܘ ܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ
4. ܕܐܦ ܡܘܫܐ ܘܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܒܬܪ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܫܬܘܝܘ ܠܓܠܝܢܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ
5. ܐܪܚܩܘ ܡ̣ܢ ܙܘܘܓܐ ܘܢܛܪܘ ܡܘܢܛܪܘ ܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ
6. ܦܛܪܘܣ ܓܝܪ ܘܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ ܐܦ ܒܢ̈ܝܐ ܐܘܠܕܘ

Translation of Syriac Text

1. In his great letter, he wrote: regarding those who marry.
2. When he ordered the apostles, those who married in the world.
3. And after they learned from our Lord, they kept purity and maintained holiness.
4. Just as Moses and others after him who were revealed to divine vision
5. Separated from marriage and maintained purity and holiness.
6. But Peter and Philip, even those who had children

Greek Text (Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis 3.51.2 - 53.2)

1. ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκεν
2. Καὶ ὅ γε Παῦλος οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν τινι ἐπιστολῇ τὴν αὑτοῦ προσαγορεύειν σύζυγον
3. ἀπερισπάστως τῷ κηρύγματι προσανέχοντες, οὐχ ὡς γαμετάς, ἀλλ' ὡς ἀδελφάς περιῆγον τὰς γυναῖκας συνδιακόνους
4. Καὶ ὅ γε Παῦλος οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν τινι ἐπιστολῇ
5. Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκεν
6. Καὶ τοὺς παλαιοὺς δίκαιοι εὐχαρίστως τῆς κτίσεως μετελάμβανον· οἳ δὲ καὶ ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο γήμαντες ἐγκρατῶς·

Translation of Greek Text

1. They had children, but Philip gave his daughters in marriage.
2. And Paul did not hesitate in some letter to refer to his own wife.
3. Attending to the preaching without distraction, they accompanied women as sisters.
4. Not as wives, but as sisters, they accompanied women deaconesses.
5. And Paul did not hesitate in some letter.
6. And the ancient righteous men gratefully partook of creation; they even had children, marrying with self-control.

Comparative Analysis

Both texts highlight the apostles' marital status and their interactions with women in ministry, emphasizing their commitment to purity and holiness. However, the Syriac text attributed to Ishodad of Merv provides a more spiritualized narrative, reflecting the apostles' transformation following their learning from Jesus. This contrasts with the Greek text, which details specific actions taken by Philip and Paul, suggesting a pragmatic approach.

Overlapping Themes and Potential Verbatim References

1. Marriage and Apostolic Life:

Greek: "ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκεν"
Syriac: "ܠܘܩܒܠ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܣܠܝܢ ܙܘܘܓܐ"
Both texts address the apostles' familial responsibilities and their interactions with women in their ministry.

2. Paul's References to His Wife:

Greek: "Καὶ ὅ γε Παῦλος οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν τινι ἐπιστολῇ τὴν αὑτοῦ προσαγορεύειν σύζυγον"
Syriac: "ܘܒܬܪ ܕܐܬܬܠܡܕܘ ܠܡܪܢ ܢܛܪܘ ܕܟܝܘܬܐ ܡܘܢܛܪܘ ܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ"
Both texts emphasize Paul's acknowledgment of his wife and his commitment to purity and holiness.

3. Apostolic Purity and Ministry:

Greek: "ἀπερισπάστως τῷ κηρύγματι προσανέχοντες, οὐχ ὡς γαμετάς, ἀλλ' ὡς ἀδελφάς περιῆγον τὰς γυναῖκας συνδιακόνους"
Syriac: "ܐܪܚܩܘ ܡ̣ܢ ܙܘܘܓܐ ܘܢܛܪܘ ܡܘܢܛܪܘ ܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ"
Both texts highlight the apostles' commitment to purity and their relationships with women in ministry, emphasizing that these relationships were maintained as "sisters" rather than wives.

4. Apostolic Children and Families:

Greek: "Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκεν"
Syriac: "ܦܛܪܘܣ ܓܝܪ ܘܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ ܐܦ ܒܢ̈ܝܐ ܐܘܠܕܘ"
Both texts note that Peter and Philip had children, highlighting their familial responsibilities alongside their apostolic duties.

5. Ancient Righteous Men:

Greek: "καὶ τοὺς παλαιοὺς δίκαιοι εὐχαρίστως τῆς κτίσεως μετελάμβανον· οἳ δὲ καὶ ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο γήμαντες ἐγκρατῶς"
Syriac: "ܕܐܦ ܡܘܫܐ ܘܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܒܬܪ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܫܬܘܝܘ ܠܓܠܝܢܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ"
Both texts draw on the examples of ancient righteous men, suggesting their engagement in marriage and procreation as consistent with a holy life.

Linguistic Analysis

The close parallels between the Syriac and Greek texts suggest that Clement's Stromateis might incorporate elements from lost letters, possibly including the "great letter" referenced by Ishodad of Merv. The thematic consistency and shared language in discussing apostolic marriage, ministry, and purity highlight the theological continuity across these works.

Conclusion

The comparison between Ishodad of Merv's Syriac commentary and Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis reveals significant overlaps in their discussions of apostolic life. These parallels support the notion that Clement's Stromateis may draw on earlier, now-lost letters, thus serving as a compendium of his broader theological reflections. Further study of these texts and their linguistic connections can provide deeper insights into early Christian views on marriage, ministry, and holiness.

[Secret Alias]

The thing is, and I don't know if my retarded assistant made it clear enough, Ishodad's citation of the "great letter" cannot be the Stromateis. The idea that Mark was the son of Peter is integral to the argument about marriage. In the Stromateis, Clement of Alexandria makes disparate statements about the compatibility of ἐνκράτεια (self-control) and marriage without a cohesive argument. However, in Ishodad's letter, the Nestorian appeals to the existence of a letter which has a structured argument concerning Mark:

1. Mark was the son of Peter.
2. This is plausible because the prophets and apostles were married.
3. An alternative interpretation of Peter being the father of Mark is supported by the Acts of the Apostles. (this Ishodad does on his own initiative not appealing to the letter of Clement in his possession).

It is implausible that Ishodad merely cited two isolated statements from Clement's various works. Instead, Ishodad references the "great letter," which contains a coherent argument about Mark being the son of Peter. This discovery now suggests that Clement of Alexandria authored a third text focused on Mark. In addition to Quis Dives Salvetur, where Clement provides a homily on Mark chapter 10, and the Letter to Theodore, this "great letter" would represent an extensive argument concerning Mark—an aspect not typically covered by other Church Fathers.

Regarding Letter 366 and its parallels with passages from the Stromateis, it is evident that the "great letter" operates in a similar manner. If Clement indeed compiled the Stromateis, he might have concealed his speculations about Mark being the son of Peter. In Letter 366, Clement's speculations appear linked to Valentinus, possibly to obscure his own potentially heretical views. Thus, the hypothesis that Letter 366 might originally be an authentic letter of Clement is bolstered by Ishodad's reference to the "great letter" of Clement of Alexandria.

[andrewcriddle]

The idea that Mark was the biological son of Peter is not found in the extant works of Clement of Alexandria and is contrary to (legendary) Coptic tradition History of the Coptic Patriarchs

In the time of the dispensation of the merciful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when he appointed for himself disciples to follow him, there were two brothers living in a city of Pentapolis in the West, called Cyrene. The name of the elder of them was Aristobulus, and the name of the other was Barnabas; and they were cultivators of the soil, and sowed and reaped; for they had great possessions. And they understood the Law of Moses excellently well, and knew by heart many of the books of the Old Testament. But great troubles came upon them from the two tribes of the Berbers and Ethiopians, when they were robbed of all their wealth, in the time of Augustus Caesar, prince of the Romans. So on account of the loss of their property, and the trials which had befallen them, they fled from that province, in their anxiety to save their lives, and travelled to the land of the Jews. Now Aristobulus had a son named John. And after they had taken up their abode in the province of Palestine, near the city of Jerusalem, the child John grew and increased in stature by the grace of the Holy Ghost. And these two brothers had a cousin, the wife of Simon Peter, who became the chief of the disciples of the Lord Christ; and the said John whom they had surnamed Mark, used to visit Peter, and learn the Christian doctrines from him out of the holy Scriptures. And on a certain day, Aristobulus took his son Mark to the Jordan, and while they were walking there a lion and a lioness met them. And when Aristobulus saw them approaching him, and perceived the violence of their rage, he said to his son Mark : «My son, seest thou the fury of this lion which is coming to destroy us? Escape now, and save thyself, my son, and leave them to devour me, according to the will of God Almighty.» But the disciple of Christ, the holy Mark, answered and said to his father : «Fear not, my father, Christ in whom I believe will deliver us from all danger». And when the lions approached them, Mark, the disciple of the Lord Christ, shouted against them with a loud voice, and said : «The Lord Jesus Christ, son of the Living God, commands that you be rent asunder, and that your kind be cut off from these mountains, and that there be no more offspring to you here for ever». Then the lion and the lioness burst asunder in the midst at that moment, and perished straightway; and their young were destroyed. And when Aristobulus, the father of Mark, saw this great miracle which was manifested by his son, through the power of the invincible Lord Jesus Christ, he said to his son : «I am thy father who begat thee, Mark, my son; but to day thou art my father, and my saviour and deliverer. And now, my dear son, I and my brother pray thee to make us servants of the Lord Jesus Christ whom thou preachest». Then the father of holy Mark and his uncle began to learn the doctrines of Christ from that day. And Mary, the mother of Mark, was the sister of Barnabas, the disciple of the apostles.

I'm dubious about an authentic work of Clement of Alexandria making this claim.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

To be fair you've consistently argued you don't accept the contents of another letter of Clement. Maybe you don't accept the private Clement of Alexandria, only his public persona. The forgery hypothesis interestingly invents a private Morton Smith at odds with his public persona. Ironic. Reality is what we choose it to be sometimes.