A Newly Identified Letter of Valentinus on Jesus’s Digestive System: Ps.-Basil of Caesarea’s ep. 366
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Nathan E. Porter in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
A passage from Ps.-Basil of Caesarea’s ep. 366 contains verbatim parallels with a quotation of Valentinus given in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.7.59.3. These parallels have rarely been recognized by scholars. Völker and Markschies have argued that Ps.-Basil was excerpting from Clement, but this paper argues that Ps.-Basil was independent of Clement and was likely Clement’s source. Overlooked evidence includes (i) the coherence of the parallel passages in the context of ep. 366 and their relative incoherence in the context of Strom. 3.7.59.3; (ii) Valentinian theology that is found throughout ep. 366, including the notions of spiritual bodies and Charis as God’s protological consort; (iii) grammatical errors in Clement that are not present in Ps.-Basil; and (iv) further textual evidence suggesting that ep. 366 has the original version of the passage. A plausible explanation of the evidence, this paper will argue, is that ep. 366 comes from the pen of Valentinus himself.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
A Newly Identified Letter of Valentinus on Jesus’s Digestive System: Ps.-Basil of Caesarea’s ep. 366
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Nathan E. Porter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
A passage from Ps.-Basil of Caesarea’s ep. 366 contains verbatim parallels with a quotation of Valentinus given in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.7.59.3. These parallels have rarely been recognized by scholars. Völker and Markschies have argued that Ps.-Basil was excerpting from Clement, but this paper argues that Ps.-Basil was independent of Clement and was likely Clement’s source. Overlooked evidence includes (i) the coherence of the parallel passages in the context of ep. 366 and their relative incoherence in the context of Strom. 3.7.59.3; (ii) Valentinian theology that is found throughout ep. 366, including the notions of spiritual bodies and Charis as God’s protological consort; (iii) grammatical errors in Clement that are not present in Ps.-Basil; and (iv) further textual evidence suggesting that ep. 366 has the original version of the passage. A plausible explanation of the evidence, this paper will argue, is that ep. 366 comes from the pen of Valentinus himself.
