Under the name of Clement of Rome have circulated multiple letters:
(1) The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, generally regarded as authentic
(2) The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, commonly circulated with the previous
(3) A First Epistle on Virginity, now only extant in Syriac
(4) A Second Epistle on Virginity, which may have originally been combined with the first
(5) The First Letter of Clement to James, originating out of the Petro-Clementine cycle
(6) The Second Letter of Clement to James
(7) A General Epistle of Clement, placed third in Pseudo-Isidore
(8) A Letter of Clement to the Consuls Julius and Julian, fourth in Pseudo-Isidore
(9) A Letter of Clement on Common Life, fifth in Pseudo-Isidore
This doesn't include multiple non-epistolary forgeries: "Ascribed to Clement are the 'Apostolical Constitutions', 'Apostolic Canons', and the 'Testament of Our Lord', also a Jacobite Anaphora."
The situation is different for Clement of Alexandria, who is associated with misattributions but few forgeries (Clement of Alexandria, p. 286):
Along with other figures such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome had a prominent position in ancient Christian thought, as illustrated from the Corpus Dionysiacum. In 2021, Dimitrios Pallis inferred that the references to "Clement the Philosopher" there referred to Clement of Rome.
https://www.academia.edu/64378738/_Re_T ... 000_words_
There is the chronological point here:
The association of Clement of Rome with Paul:
The identification of "the philosopher" requires some explanation:
In this line of thought, Pallis is preceded by Andrew Criddle and Eric Osborn:
https://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/letters ... lexandria/
Notices regarding occasional confusion in patristic literature between Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria are routine in scholarship (cf. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers).
This informs Criddle's review of these references in the Sacra Parallela:
There is evidence here of a collection of letters, most likely just one, attributed to a Clement.
Beyond just the instability of the attributions noted in the textual tradition, which suggest that the more specific references regarding "the letter of Clement the Stromatist" are secondary, and beyond the fact that "Clement of Rome" is explicitly mentioned in one citation, additional considerations indicate in favor of thinking it is more likely that such a collection of letters would have been originally associated with Clement of Rome.
Meanwhile, we've seen that the production of forged letters attributed to Clement of Rome was a long-lived and active interest, which more likely explains the production and collection of more than twenty letters under one name (including the spurious "letter 9 of the Holy Clement of Rome"). Once it's seen that this is likely a collection of letters originally associated with Clement of Rome, it becomes untenable to assume that it represents a collection of genuine letters of Clement of Alexandria assembled by himself or someone who knew him.
While this doesn't preclude the possibility that some letters of Clement of Alexandria were circulating that haven't been mentioned in the extant literature, the absence of clear and genuine notices of the same is pertinent. Such silence reduces confidence in this assumption, which has sometimes been maintained on the basis of the above references.
(1) The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, generally regarded as authentic
(2) The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, commonly circulated with the previous
(3) A First Epistle on Virginity, now only extant in Syriac
(4) A Second Epistle on Virginity, which may have originally been combined with the first
(5) The First Letter of Clement to James, originating out of the Petro-Clementine cycle
(6) The Second Letter of Clement to James
(7) A General Epistle of Clement, placed third in Pseudo-Isidore
(8) A Letter of Clement to the Consuls Julius and Julian, fourth in Pseudo-Isidore
(9) A Letter of Clement on Common Life, fifth in Pseudo-Isidore
This doesn't include multiple non-epistolary forgeries: "Ascribed to Clement are the 'Apostolical Constitutions', 'Apostolic Canons', and the 'Testament of Our Lord', also a Jacobite Anaphora."
The situation is different for Clement of Alexandria, who is associated with misattributions but few forgeries (Clement of Alexandria, p. 286):
Of the spuria given by Stahlin most are the result of misattribution, not forgery; forgery accounts only for the ἀπόδειξις περὶ τοῦ πάσχα (III.LII), the source of fragments 70—74, and possibly the homily on the prodigal son printed in Potter's edition. The ὅροι probably began by drawing on Clement for material and ended with misattribution (for ὁ φιλόσοφος see III.LXVI, on fragment 52). The three forgeries are evidently late and isolated; they do not testify to any general interest in Clement at any time when forgery of the present text would have been credible. Note the comparative rarity of references to Clement in Grant's account of the use of early fathers as authorities (Appeal 15ff).
Along with other figures such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome had a prominent position in ancient Christian thought, as illustrated from the Corpus Dionysiacum. In 2021, Dimitrios Pallis inferred that the references to "Clement the Philosopher" there referred to Clement of Rome.
https://www.academia.edu/64378738/_Re_T ... 000_words_
There is the chronological point here:
It may be worth investigating here whether Clement the philosopher of the corpus could be the Bishop of Rome. The chronological details that we know about the life of Clement (f. the second half of the frst century AD) permit one to argue that a reference to him would be consistent with the narrative of the corpus: Dionysius mentioned that when he was young he observed the phenomenon of an eclipse of the sun at the moment of the crucifxion of Jesus (Ep. VII.2-3). If we assume that he was twenty years old or thereabouts at that time, it would be consistent with a possible reference by Dionysius to Clement of Rome.
The association of Clement of Rome with Paul:
Another way in which we could perceive the proposed identifcation would be through Origen’s exegesis. This infuential predecessor of Dionysius had identifed Clement of Rome with Clement the disciple or fellow-worker of Paul who was referred to in Phil. 4:3 (cf. e.g. Welborn 2017: 376-377). This identifcation would make things easier in the sense that it highlights the connection of Clement of Rome with Paul, who was also the purported teacher of the author of the corpus.
The identification of "the philosopher" requires some explanation:
It can be argued that the textual coherence of the corpus of Dionysius could permit a reading of the term as an epithet and not exclusively as a technical concept. The Greek words for philosophy or love of wisdom and philosopher are used in almost every instance by Dionysius with regard to the theological beliefs and the ritual practice of those who follow the Christian religion and their Jewish ancestors (DN II.2 and III.3; cf. also EH III.III.4 and VI.III.2; a similar argument is made in Siassos 1984: 59-60). Alternative terms or periphrastic formulations are also employed by Dionysius to refer to the erotic desire of the Christians for the true and higher philosophy of their religion (e.g. in DN I.5 and ibid. IV.13). One of the two aspects of the Christian tradition is the philosophical way of the theologians or those who speak of God (he philosophos paradosis ton theologon in Ep. IX.1). It should also be noted that Dionysius tended to attach various adjectives and nouns to proper names and therefore the philosophical title for Clement could not exclusively denote a pagan or Christian philosopher in a literal sense (it could be synonymous with phrases such as ho philosophos [i.e. wise or prudent] aner or didaskalos). A further argument could be that there are specifc teachings or views ascribed by Dionysius to fgures from the early church or even reconstructed known views of theirs (this practice can be found, among others, in the following passages: MT I.3; Ep. VII.2; Ep. VIII.6). It is possible to argue that there are traditions which could be known to ancient readers but are now lost or have not been considered by modern scholars in this regard yet. For example, in the so-called Clementine Homilies and Recognitions it was stated (Hom. and Rec. 1.3; cf. also Rec. 8.7) that Clement of Rome attended philosophical lectures in his youth and had been connected with certain Greek philosophers.
In this line of thought, Pallis is preceded by Andrew Criddle and Eric Osborn:
https://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/letters ... lexandria/
In The Divine Names Dionysius says And whereas the philosopher Clement maintains that the title “Exemplar” may, in a sense, be applied to the more important types in the visible world, he employs not the terms of his discourse in their proper, perfect and simple meaning. Osborn shows in appendix C of The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria the problems that this passage caused for those influenced by Dionysius. The philosopher Clement seemed to be a reference to Clement of Alexandria but only Clement of Rome could be a contemporary of Dionysius the Areopagite. As a consequence a hybrid figure develops with the dates of Clement of Rome and the opinions and literary characteristics of Clement of Alexandria. This figure became the author of pseudo-Clementine works such as Concerning Providence, the fragments of which are attributed in the tradition sometimes to Clement of Rome sometimes to Clement of Alexandria.
Notices regarding occasional confusion in patristic literature between Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria are routine in scholarship (cf. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers).
This informs Criddle's review of these references in the Sacra Parallela:
There is, as previously noted, no attribution of material to a letter of Clement of Alexandria in Coisl. 276, Vat. 1553 or Antonius Melissa. IE such attributions are found only in the later forms of the Sacra Parallela, not in those sources witnessing to the earlier form. However, Vat. 1553 does quote a short passage as from letter 9 of the Holy Clement of Rome.
The passage On Almsgiving is found in the Sacra Parallela and Antonius Melissa. In Antonius Melissa it is attributed simply to Clement, in Codex Rupef. and most of the other manuscripts to Clement the Stromatist, and in the remaining manuscripts to the letter of Clement the Stromatist.
The passage On the Servants of God is found only in the Sacra Parallela. In Codex Rupef. it is attributed as from letter 21 of Clement the Stromatist, in all other manuscripts it is attributed simply to Clement.
The passage On the Kingdom of Heaven is found in the Sacra Parallela and Coisl. 276. It always occurs immediately after a passage attributed correctly to Quis Dives Salvetur (Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?) by Clement. In Coisl. 276 Codex Rupef. and most of the other manuscripts there is no new heading, but in the remaining manuscripts it is attributed as from letter 21 (presumably of Clement of Alexandria cited explicitly immediately before.)
There is evidence here of a collection of letters, most likely just one, attributed to a Clement.
It is simply not plausible that the compilers of the Sacra Parallela had access to two otherwise unknown substantial collections of letters one attributed to Clement of Rome the other to Clement of Alexandria. It is much more likely that only one collection is involved.
Beyond just the instability of the attributions noted in the textual tradition, which suggest that the more specific references regarding "the letter of Clement the Stromatist" are secondary, and beyond the fact that "Clement of Rome" is explicitly mentioned in one citation, additional considerations indicate in favor of thinking it is more likely that such a collection of letters would have been originally associated with Clement of Rome.
There is no mention in Eusebius’ account of Clement of Alexandria of any surviving letters, and apart from the Sacra Parallela there is no evidence in later writers of such letters. (Stahlin briefly discusses other possible mentions of letters written by Clement of Alexandria and shows that these passages are to be understood otherwise.)
Meanwhile, we've seen that the production of forged letters attributed to Clement of Rome was a long-lived and active interest, which more likely explains the production and collection of more than twenty letters under one name (including the spurious "letter 9 of the Holy Clement of Rome"). Once it's seen that this is likely a collection of letters originally associated with Clement of Rome, it becomes untenable to assume that it represents a collection of genuine letters of Clement of Alexandria assembled by himself or someone who knew him.
While this doesn't preclude the possibility that some letters of Clement of Alexandria were circulating that haven't been mentioned in the extant literature, the absence of clear and genuine notices of the same is pertinent. Such silence reduces confidence in this assumption, which has sometimes been maintained on the basis of the above references.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Wed May 08, 2024 12:06 pm