On the Name Judas [Part Two]

We have been puzzling over the fact that Clement of Alexandria explains the name 'Judas' (Judah) as meaning 'powerful.' Anyone familiar with the Torah would know the name means Judah's “praise” (Gen. 29:35). Yet Clement ignores this and ignores the testimony of his usual source for all things Biblical, Philo of Alexandria to go out on a limb. Why? It is difficult to say but Clement clearly knew this passage from Philo which cites this very section of Genesis to explain the meaning of the name:

Accordingly Judah is the symbol of a man who makes this confession "in respect of whom Leah ceased from child-Bearing." (Genesis 29:35} But Issachar is the symbol of the man who does good actions, "For he put forth (Genesis 49:15) his shoulder to labour and became a man tilling the earth." With respect to whom Moses says, hire is in his soul after he has been sown and planted, so that his labour is not imperfect, but is rather crowned and honoured with a reward by God. And that he is making mention of these things, he shows when speaking on other subjects; when describing the garment, which reached to the feet he says, "And thou shalt weave in it sets of stones in four rows. The row of stones shall be the sardine stone, the topaz, and the emerald are the first row." Reuben, Simeon, and Levi are here meant. "And the second row," he says, "are the carbuncle and the Sapphire." (Exodus 28:17) And the sapphire is the same as the green stone. And in the carbuncle was inscribed the name of Judah, for he was the fourth son: and in the sapphire the name of Issachar. Why then as he had called the sapphire the green stone, did he not also speak of the red stone? Because Judah, as the type of a disposition inclined to confession, is a being immaterial and incorporeal. For the very name of confession (exomologeæseoæs) shows that it is a thing external to (ektos) himself. For when the mind is beside itself, and bears itself upward to God, as the laughter of Isaac did, then it makes a confession to him who alone has a real being. But as long as it considers itself as the cause of something, it is a long way from yielding to God, and confession to him. For this very act of confessing ought to be considered as being the work not of the soul, but of God who teaches it this feeling of gratitude. Accordingly Judah, who practises confession, is an immaterial being. [Allegorical Interpretation 1.80 - 82]

The question now is why does Clement put forward a completely different etymology? What was his source and why did he prefer it over the obvious correct choice?