Did Clement REALLY write the text cited by Eusebius as 'the Hypotyposes'?

The reason I ask is that Eusebius is well known to have avoided mentioning Theognostus of Alexandria. Theognostus of Alexandria wrote a book called the Hypotyposes (see Photius). Harnack assigns Theognostus activity to be around 248 CE. They were roughly the same length. Eusebius says that the Hypotyposes 'of Clement' were the same length as Stromata (eight books); Photius says that Theognostus' Hypotyposes contained seven books. Yet the eighth book of the Stromata is noticeably shorter than the rest and could - theoretically - have been viewed as a conclusion to the main work. It is even possible that it originally formed a separate work and was added to the seven original books of the Hypotyposes.

Consider the conclusion of Book Seven in this regard:

Now the Miscellanies are not like parts laid out, planted in regular order for the delight of the eye, but rather like an umbrageous and shaggy hill, planted with laurel, and ivy, and apples, and olives, and figs; the planting being purposely a mixture of fruit-bearing and fruitless trees, since the composition aims at concealment, on account of those that have the daring to pilfer and steal the ripe fruits; from which, however, the husbandmen, transplanting shoots and plants, will adorn a beautiful park and a delightful grove.

The Miscellanies, then, study neither arrangement nor diction; since there are even cases in which the Greeks on purpose wish that ornate diction should be absent, and imperceptibly cast in the seed of dogmas, not according to the truth, rendering such as may read laborious and quick at discovery. For many and various are the baits for the various kinds of fishes.

And now, after this seventh Miscellany of ours, we shall give the account of what follows in order from another commencement.

Given then that the original Hypotyposes 'of Clement' and Theognostus were ORIGINALLY OF THE SAME LENGTH - i.e. seven books - let's consider what might have motivated Eusebius to 'misidentify' the author.

Theognostus is identified to be an Origenist and a number of scholars have identified his teachings to be very similar to Eusebius' own. It might well be possible to think that Eusebius 'accidentally' misidentified Theognostus' text as belonging to Clement. At the same time, as he wrote the Church History in a period of intense anti-Arianism and where Arians were always referenced as 'neo-Origenists' having the Hypotyposes and their doctrines connected with someone who lived BEFORE Origen would help Eusebius escape the charge of being influenced by the 'wicked ideas' which came into Origen's imagination.

I can't get into too much detail about how Photius' description of the seven books of Theognostus' Hypotyposes line up with what is found in the fragments of the book of the same title identified by Eusebius as belonging to Clement (and thereafter all the Church Fathers following his lead) but one thing is particularly striking.

When scholars feel that Clement's understanding of the writing of Secret Mark is 'CONTRADICTED' by what appears in his writings ALL THE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF CLEMENT'S BELIEFS COME DOWN TO US IN FRAGMENTS WHICH ARE SAID TO BELONG TO CLEMENT BY EITHER EUSEBIUS OR WHO WERE INFLUENCED BY EUSEBIUS.

Two of these references are ascribed by Eusebius to the Hypotyposes, the other is a much later writer who cites 'Clement's' interpretation of 1 Peter.

Before I cite part of Photius' identification of what appeared in Theognostus' Hypotyposes I should school scholars on the Alexandrian concept of 'the incarnation' from one of my favorite writers on things Alexandrian - Stephen J. Davis.

Davis devotes the first chapter of his book to demonstrate that throughout Alexandrian Church history (the heretics through to modern times) the 'Incarnation' wasn't used to describe the birth of Jesus but the 'Christ soul' moving from body to body throughout time - i.e. from Jesus to his disciples and then to bodies that were prepared through his sacred mysteries.

Thus when Photius tells us about the contents of Theognostus' Hypotyposes and that:

In the fifth and sixth, he relates how the Saviour became incarnate, and attempts, after his manner, to show that the incarnation of the Son was possible.

These very same ideas can be seen as being present in the Hypotyposes identified by Eusebius as belonging to Clement. For instance:

Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem. [Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Book VI. II. X]

Here a very Alexandrian interpretation of the Incarnation is being presented - i.e. how the Christ soul chose a new body to house itself after the ascension. Similarly the Hypotyposes cited by Eusebius speaks of the mystery of baptism and Peter receiving the some kind of 'enlightenment' or 'spirit' direct from Jesus:

Yes, truly, the apostles were baptised, as Clement the Stromatist relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes. For, in explaining the apostolic statement, "I thank God that I baptised none of you," he says, Christ is said to have baptised Peter alone, and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest [Moschus: Spiritual Meadow, Book V. Chap. 176]

Here again is a thoroughly Alexandrian conception of 'Incarnation' as Stephen Davis demonstrates in his lengthy chapter dealing with the concept.

So it is that when we come to the what is often cited by Eusebius as belonging to the Hypotyposes 'of Clement' there is still the idea of some kind of enlightenment or 'light' eminating from Peter and touching the person of Mark:

So, then, through the visit of the divine word to them, the power of Simon was extinguished, and immediately was destroyed along with the man himself. And such a ray of godliness shone forth on the minds of Peter's hearers, that they were not satisfied with the once hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with all manner of entreaties importuned Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, he being the companion of Peter, that he would leave in writing a record of the teaching which had been delivered to them verbally; and did not let the man alone till they prevailed upon him; and so to them we owe the Scripture called the "Gospel by Mark." On learning what had been done, through the revelation of the Spirit, it is said that the apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men, and sanctioned the composition for reading in the Churches. Clemens gives the narrative in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes. [Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, II. 15]

The point again that the contradictions which appear in the Hypotyposes and the letter to Theodore no longer need to be seen as a decisive proof against Morton Smith's discovery.

We have the beginnings of an argument at least that the text didn't belong to Clement at all but an Origenist named Theognostus (one can see how Clement's self-identification as a 'gnostic' might well have helped Eusebius' 'confusion') whose theology stood uncomfortably close to Eusebius' own.