The strongest parallels occur in Clement’s handling of disputed teaching, selective disclosure, and quotation, as well as in several individual grammatical constructions. Below I go through the entire surviving letter, including its gospel quotations.
I use manuscript page-and-line references for the letter, and book, section, subsection for Clement: Strom. V.140.2 means book V, section 140, subsection 2. “Close” means a demonstrable grammatical or verbal correspondence; it does not necessarily mean an entire sentence is reproduced.
The opening attribution to Clement is a heading rather than part of the letter’s argumentative prose.
1. I.2 — Theodore did well to silence the Carpocratians
The construction is καλῶς ποιεῖν + participle: the participle specifies the action being commended.
Compare Strom. III.1.2–3:
καλῶς ποιοῦσι μὴ γαμοῦντες
“They do well in not marrying.”
This is a close grammatical parallel: present tense and a negative present participle in the Stromata, versus aorist verb and aorist participle in the letter. Clement is reporting a Basilidian interpretation here, so it is an attested construction in his prose, rather than necessarily his own judgment.
2. I.3–4 — Οὗτοι γὰρ οἱ προφητευθέντες ἀστέρες πλανῆται…
The sentence begins with a nominal identification, with “are” understood, then adds an extended articular participial description: these people are the wandering stars—those wandering away from the road.
Compare Strom. VII.94.6:
οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέ, ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ…
Clement identifies a class of people and then explains their errors through a participial description of departure from the right road. The difference matters: his participle is causal, introduced by ἅτε; the letter’s is attributive, introduced by the repeated article. This is a close combination of syntax and metaphor, not an identical sentence frame.
There is also a more localized correspondence in Strom. IV.158.2, where sin/disobedience is described as σαρκικῆς τε οὔσης καὶ ἐνσωμάτου. The letter turns the same paired characterization into attributive adjectives modifying “sins.”
3. I.5–7 — Πεφυσιωμένοι γὰρ εἰς γνῶσιν…
This long sentence contains three independently comparable constructions.
- Perfect participle + εἰς γνῶσιν. Paed. I.25.1 has οἱ εἰς γνῶσιν πεφυσιωμένοι. This is an especially close match: the same participle, preposition, and noun, with their order changed.
- λανθάνω + supplementary participle, expressing an action performed without recognizing its significance. Compare Strom. II.118.1: ἐλάνθανεν δὲ ἑαυτὸν κατασοφιζόμενος ὁ ἄθλιος—the unfortunate man was unwittingly outwitting himself. The letter similarly describes unwitting self-destruction.
- A claim to freedom reversed into slavery. Strom. III.44.4 says μηδὲ λεγόντων ἐλευθερίαν τὴν ὑπὸ ἡδονῆς δουλείαν: they must not call slavery to pleasure freedom. For the particular construction “boasting + infinitive,” compare III.49.1, where opponents boast of understanding the gospel better than others.
The accusative ἐλευθέρους deserves separate attention. With an infinitive sharing the subject of καυχώμενοι, a nominative predicate would be the straightforward construction. An understood reflexive accusative can explain the wording, but the parallels above do not establish an exact match for that case choice.
4. I.7–8 — Τούτοις οὖν ἀντιστατέον πάντῃ τε καὶ πάντως
Compare Strom. VII.90.2:
πιστευτέον οὖν τοῖς βεβαίως ἐχομένοις τῆς ἀληθείας
“One must therefore trust those who hold firmly to the truth.”
Both have an impersonal verbal adjective in -τέον, inferential οὖν, and a dative identifying the people toward whom the prescribed action is directed. The dative is a complement of the verb, not a dative of agent.
The adverbial combination πάντῃ τε καὶ πάντως also occurs in Strom. VI.155.2. Thus the sentence combines an attested directive construction with an attested emphatic expression.
5. I.8–9 — Εἰ γὰρ καί τι ἀληθὲς λέγοιεν…
I read τι ἀληθές, “something true,” following the usual transcription, where your pasted text has το ἀληθές.
Compare Strom. V.140.2:
εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὰς λέξεις ἐπίοιμεν αὐτῶν, οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιμεν
The grammatical correspondence is particularly strong:
| Letter | Clement |
|---|
| εἰ γὰρ καί + optative λέγοιεν | εἰ γὰρ καί + optative ἐπίοιμεν |
| negative + optative συμφωνοίη + ἄν | negative + ἄν + optative φθάνοιμεν |
There is a difference in force: Clement’s καί can mean “also”—if we also examined their expressions—whereas the letter’s is concessive, “even if.” The conditional architecture nevertheless matches closely.
The nominal expression “lover of truth” also appears in Strom. VII.94.5, in the dative τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ.
6. I.9–11 — Οὐδὲ γὰρ πάντα τἀληθῆ ἀλήθεια…
I did not locate an exact counterpart to the opening aphorism. There are, however, strong parallels for its distinctions.
In Strom. I.98.4, Clement distinguishes Greek truth from Christian truth even though they bear the same name. At I.100.2 he uses the exact attributive expression:
ἡ κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ἀλήθεια
The letter relocates that prepositional qualification after its noun, with a repeated article.
For the prescription to distinguish apparent from genuine truth, compare Strom. VII.91.4:
διακριτέον … τὸ ἀληθὲς ἀπὸ τοῦ φαινομένου
Both employ -τέον to prescribe a discrimination between reality and appearance. Clement has separation with ἀπό; the letter has preference with a comparative genitive. This is a close argumentative and grammatical analogue, with different verbal government.
7. I.11–13 — Τῶν τοίνυν θρυλουμένων… τὰ μὲν… τὰ δέ…
The initial genitive is partitive, not a genitive absolute: “of the things being circulated,” some fall into one category and others into another.
Compare Strom. I.87.2, where material obtained from the prophets is distributed into categories: some things were falsified, others distorted through ignorant ingenuity, others invented. The organizing device is the same τὰ μέν … τὰ δέ partition, although Clement expresses the subsequent actions through participles.
More pointedly, I.85.3 says:
ἐν δὲ τοῖς ψεύδεσι καὶ ἀληθῆ τινα ἔλεγον οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται
False prophets said some true things among their falsehoods. This closely parallels the letter’s ἀληθῆ τινα contained within unreliable reporting. Neither passage supplies the complete fronted-genitive sentence, but together they provide substantial comparanda.
8. I.13–15 — Συγκεκραμένα γὰρ τἀληθῆ τοῖς πλάσμασι παραχαράσσεται…
Compare Strom. I.18.1:
ἀναμεμιγμένην τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῖς φιλοσοφίας δόγμασι
The shared construction is perfect passive participle of mixing + truth as the affected entity + dative of what it is mixed with. Clement’s phrase is accusative, dependent on “will contain”; the letter makes the corresponding entity its nominative subject.
For the next predication, compare Strom. III.27.4:
οἱ παραχαράσσοντες τὴν ἀλήθειαν
The letter converts an attested active “falsifying truth” expression into a passive assertion. I did not find a comparably close Clementine parallel for the complete concluding ὥστε + infinitive construction involving salt.
9. I.15–18 — Mark’s initial selection of material
The governing structure is a finite verb of writing, followed by two negative participial qualifications and a positive corrective participle: not reporting everything, nor indicating the mysteries, but selecting useful material.
Compare Strom. I.14.3:
τὰ μὲν ἑκὼν παραπέμπομαι ἐκλέγων ἐπιστημόνως
Clement describes deliberately passing over material while selecting knowledgeably. His finite statement likewise expands into participles explaining selection, reluctance to write, and concern for readers.
This is a substantial parallel for authorial selection expressed through a governing verb and an extended participial explanation, although the letter’s exact three-member negative-negative-positive arrangement is not reproduced there.
10. I.18–22 — Peter’s death, Mark’s relocation, and the further composition
For the opening temporal construction, compare Quis dives salvetur 42.2:
τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος … μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἔφεσον
The pattern is strikingly similar: someone’s death in a genitive absolute, followed by another person’s geographical relocation. In the letter, participles then connect the relocation with carrying documents and transferring material.
A separate comparison is Clement’s gospel-origin account preserved by Eusebius, HE VI.14.6–7. It connects Peter’s Roman preaching, Mark’s writing, and a subsequent “spiritual gospel.” However, the spiritual gospel there belongs to John, and the account is transmitted through Eusebius. It is relevant evidence for the narrative formulation, but should not be presented as Clement independently telling the letter’s particular story.
11. I.22–26 — Further writing without disclosing the innermost teaching
Two correspondences stand out.
First, Strom. I.21.2 joins ἀπόρρητος teaching with ἐξορχήσασθαι, the unusual verb used for divulging it. The letter uses the same verb with the substantivized plural “the secret things.” This is a close match in both vocabulary and the verb’s object relationship.
Second, Strom. I.13.2 describes recipients:
οἷς προσήκειν ἠπίστατο
“Those for whom he knew it was appropriate.”
Both passages embed ἠπίστατο + infinitive within a relative construction concerning the proper communication of teaching. The letter is more elaborate, introducing an accusative subject, “the interpretation,” and a future infinitive.
For the sevenfold enclosure and sanctuary imagery, Strom. V.32–34 is relevant. But that is an imagery parallel; it does not reproduce the letter’s intricate relative-and-infinitive construction.
12. I.26–27 — Preparation without jealousy or carelessness
Compare the explanation of withholding material in Strom. I.14.3:
οὔ τί που φθονῶν … δεδιὼς δὲ … περὶ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων
Clement rejects jealousy as his motive and substitutes concern about readers.
The letter compresses essentially the same paired evaluation into two coordinated negative adverbs. The grammatical realization differs—participles versus adverbs—but the balancing of generosity against responsible restraint is unusually close.
13. I.27–II.2 — Leaving the work to the church, with restricted reading
The sentence moves from an author’s death and bequest to a locative relative clause describing the document’s continuing preservation and readership.
The closest verified construction concerning access is Strom. V.58.2:
ἃ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἐπιτρέπουσι τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἀναγινώσκειν
Clement describes writings that students are not readily permitted to read until they have been tested. The letter similarly characterizes a document by who may read it, though it uses a passive participle rather than permission plus infinitive.
The distinction between preliminary and greater mysteries also appears in V.71.1. That supports the classification of readers by advancement, but not the whole bequest-and-preservation sentence.
14. II.2–9 — Carpocrates obtains and corrupts a copy
This period combines:
- a causal or circumstantial genitive absolute;
- participles describing instruction and deceptive means;
- a main verb followed by a result clause;
- a relative clause describing interpretation and contamination.
In Strom. I.20.2 Clement writes:
ὑπό τινος ἀπατηλοῦ τέχνης καταγοητευομένους
The shared feature is being acted upon through deceptive art, expressed by a passive participle and its accompanying qualification.
The final mixing construction returns to the pattern already established at I.13–15 of the letter and Strom. I.18.1. Here, however, the participle is active: Carpocrates contaminates words by mixing falsehoods into them.
I have not located one Clementine sentence reproducing this entire long sequence. Its components are much better paralleled than its complete architecture.
15. II.9–10 — The Carpocratian doctrine is drawn from that mixture
Compare Strom. I.12.2, where wells are described as τὰ φρέατα ἐξαντλούμενα.
This establishes Clement’s use of the same drawing-out verb in a water metaphor. It is a limited parallel: the letter makes doctrine what is drawn out, with the mixture as its source; Clement’s wells are what is drained. The lexical correspondence should not be promoted into an exact syntactic match.
16. II.10–12 — Do not yield, do not concede, but deny
The notable feature is the accumulation of impersonal -τέον directives, arranged negatively and then correctively.
Compare Strom. VII.91.3, where Clement prescribes undertaking the labor of investigation rather than abandoning it, using ἐπαποδυτέον … ἀλλ’ οὐ … ἀποστατέον.
This is a close parallel for coordinated verbal adjectives governing an argumentative instruction. It parallels the sentence’s grammatical form; it does not independently parallel the particular instruction to deny something under oath.
17. II.12–13 — Not every truth should be told to everyone
The construction combines an impersonal verbal adjective with two differently functioning universals: everyone as recipient; everything true as content.
Strom. I.13.2 supplies a close distributive formulation: Christ did not disclose to many what did not belong to many, but to the few suited to receive it. The letter turns that distinction into a compact general prescription.
This is stronger as a parallel in quantification and restriction of recipients than as an exact verbal match.
18. II.13–15 — Wisdom speaks through Solomon, followed by an explanatory participle
The structure is scriptural attribution → quotation → participial explanation of what the quotation teaches.
The same proverb appears in Strom. V.18.2:
ἀποκρίνου … τῷ μωρῷ ἐκ τῆς μωρίας αὐτοῦ
Clement then explains how one should address seekers of wisdom through their own intellectual resources. The letter gives the proverb a different explanatory application, concerning concealment.
The exact prooftext and the movement from citation to interpretation are parallel; the interpretation itself differs.
19. II.15–16 — The paired sayings about deprivation and darkness
The construction is a citation-introducing expression followed by two scriptural clauses connected with καί.
Compare the close succession of scriptural sayings in Strom. I.13–14, including the saying about additional gifts to the person who already possesses something. That is a useful comparison for the chaining of prooftexts, but I did not locate Clement independently reproducing this particular pair in this order.
20. II.16–18 — “We” as illuminated children of light
Paed. II.80.1 combines first-person Christian exhortation with the Pauline designation of believers as children of light. Immediately before it, II.79.3 characterizes the enlightened person through a substantivized perfect passive participle.
The letter similarly moves from a collective identification to a participial description explaining that identity. The correspondence is real, but much of the language is inherited from Scripture rather than distinctive to Clement.
21. II.18 — Where the Spirit is, there is freedom
This is the locative correlation οὗ … ἐκεῖ, with a parenthetic citation verb.
The underlying sentence is 2 Corinthians 3:17. I did not verify an independent Clementine reproduction of this exact wording in the texts searched. Clement’s insertion of citation verbs within quotations is readily paralleled—for example in his quotation of Solomon at Strom. V.18—but that does not make the biblical correlative construction a distinctive Clementine parallel.
22. II.18–19 — All things are pure to the pure
Clement quotes the same Titus passage at Strom. III.109.1.
The structure—neuter plural subject, predicate adjective, dative of the persons concerned—is therefore directly attested in his writings. Because both texts quote Titus 1:15, this is evidence of shared scriptural usage rather than an independent specimen of Clement’s sentence-making.
23. II.19–20 — The promise to answer Theodore from the gospel’s wording
Compare Protrepticus VIII.79.2:
οὐκ ὀκνήσω λέγειν
“I shall not hesitate to say.”
The letter uses precisely this negative future of hesitation + infinitive, adding an initial recipient and a participle explaining the evidential purpose of the answer. This is a close match for its governing construction.
24. II.20–22 — Locating and introducing the longer quotation
Two particularly good parallels occur in Clement’s treatment of opponents.
At Strom. III.28, he abbreviates a scriptural passage with:
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως
That is the letter’s same procedure: give the beginning, indicate the omitted continuation, and identify the endpoint.
At Strom. III.9.3, introducing Epiphanes, he writes:
ὧδέ πως ἐπιφέρει κατὰ λέξιν
The letter’s formula differs principally by omitting πως. This is among the closest parallels in the entire letter, both grammatically and in its function within a dispute about teaching.
25. II.23–III.11 — The longer gospel quotation, sentence by sentence
Here the appropriate Clementine controls include both his own narrative prose and the gospel language he quotes. The distinction matters: Quis dives salvetur 42 supplies authorial narrative; chapter 4 supplies an explicit quotation of Mark.
| Sentence or narrative unit | Structural comparison with Clement |
|---|
| Arrival at Bethany; a woman whose brother died | Historical present followed by background imperfect and a relative clause. Clement’s narrative in Quis dives 42 uses comparable changes of tense. I found no close independent match for the particular relative construction with a resumptive possessive pronoun. |
| The woman approaches, bows, and speaks | An aorist participle introduces coordinated actions, ending in historical-present speech. Compare the arrival, looking, and speaking sequence in Quis dives 42.3. The correspondence is ordinary narrative syntax, not a distinctive verbal match. |
| The disciples rebuke her | A short subject–verb–dative clause. No distinctive Clementine counterpart identified. |
| Jesus becomes angry and goes with her to the garden | Participial emotion or circumstance preceding a verb of movement. Quis dives 42.10 similarly connects emotional gestures with speech and subsequent movement, but does not reproduce this sentence. |
| A loud voice is heard from the tomb | Passive aorist, source phrase, and postponed subject. No close independent Clementine match identified. |
| Jesus approaches and rolls away the stone | An anterior aorist participle precedes the main action. Compare Quis dives 42.11: ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὸ χωρίον … ἁλίσκεται. The basic construction matches, while Clement uses a historical present for the main verb. |
| He enters, stretches out his hand, and raises the youth, grasping his hand | Participial framing surrounds coordinated finite verbs. Clement likewise accumulates participles around the principal action in Quis dives 42.14–15. The particular hand-and-raising sequence is not independently established there. |
| The youth looks at him, loves him, and begins to request companionship | The closest correspondence is Quis dives 4.7: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐμβλέψας ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν. The quotation changes the subject from Jesus to the youth. Clement is quoting Mark, so this is a close match within Clement’s writings, but not independent Clementine composition. |
| They leave the tomb and enter the youth’s house; he was rich | Participial departure followed by arrival, then an explanatory γάρ-clause. Quis dives 4.8 likewise follows narrative action with an explanation of the man’s wealth. Again, the comparator belongs to Clement’s gospel quotation. |
| After six days Jesus gives an instruction | Initial temporal phrase, aorist verb, dative recipient. No distinctive Clementine sentence parallel identified. |
| Evening comes; the youth arrives wearing linen | Temporal genitive absolute, historical present, and circumstantial perfect participle. All are compatible with Clement’s narrative grammar, but I did not locate a close sentence combining them in this way. |
| He remains with Jesus that night | Verb of remaining, accompaniment, and accusative duration. No distinctive Clementine counterpart identified. |
| Jesus was teaching him the kingdom’s mystery | Explanatory γάρ, imperfect teaching verb, and two accusatives: person taught and subject taught. Clement’s Quis dives 5.2 similarly describes the Savior teaching his followers through divine and mysterious wisdom, but does not reproduce the double-accusative sentence. |
| Jesus rises and returns across the Jordan | Initial location, aorist participle, and finite movement verb. Comparable movement sequences occur in Quis dives 42; no distinctive independent verbal parallel identified. |
The narrative comparisons are available in Quis dives 42.2–15; the particularly close looking-and-loving expression and the wealth explanation are in 4.7–8.
The general participial constructions are consequently much less informative than the specific looking-and-loving correspondence. Several other clauses remain without a verified close Clementine counterpart.
26. III.11–13 — Identifying the passage that follows
The writer returns from quotation to commentary, treating the beginning of the next passage as a substantive introduced by the article.
Compare Clement’s recurring practice of quoting an opening, abbreviating its continuation, and introducing the next textual unit, particularly Strom. III.28 and V.2.
This is a close expository procedure. I have not verified the exact combination of the letter’s opening prepositional phrase, “follows,” and “the whole pericope” elsewhere in Clement.
27. III.13–14 — The disputed “naked with naked” wording is absent
A particularly relevant comparison is Strom. III.93.1. Clement says that a disputed saying is absent from the four transmitted gospels but present in the Gospel according to the Egyptians:
οὐκ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητόν, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ κατ’ Αἰγυπτίους
Both passages identify disputed words as textual objects and adjudicate whether they occur in a particular gospel.
The letter uses passive “is not found”; Clement uses active “we do not have.” This is a strong parallel in the organization of textual argument, rather than an exact grammatical duplicate.
28. III.14–16 — The second quotation and the two sentences it contains
The introductory sentence again uses a textual landmark followed by a verb meaning “adds.” Its closest established comparator is the quotation procedure in Strom. III.9.3 discussed above.
Within the quotation:
- The women are present at Jericho. The structure is an existential imperfect followed by a coordinated list of people. A relative clause identifying the youth contains both a relative pronoun and a resumptive personal pronoun. I did not locate a close independent Clementine sentence with this particular combination.
- Jesus does not receive them. This is a simple negative transitive clause with the named subject postponed. Nothing in that construction alone provides a distinctive Clementine parallel.
The first sentence’s resumptive relative deserves more attention than the second sentence’s ordinary word order. It should be compared separately from the surrounding epistolary syntax.
29. III.17 — The other allegations both appear false and are false
Compare Paed. II.45.4:
εἶναί τε καὶ φαίνεσθαι γελοῖοι
“To be and to appear ridiculous.”
The shared construction coordinates being and appearing with one predicate applying to both. The letter reverses the order and uses finite verbs with a predicate noun; Clement uses infinitives with a predicate adjective.
This is a genuine structural parallel, although not a complete verbal match.
30. III.18 — The unfinished introduction to the true interpretation
The surviving text is only an expanded noun phrase. Its most secure parallel is Clement’s repeated use of κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν to qualify his exposition, including the close of Strom. I.182 and the opening of VI.1.
Here the correspondence concerns an attributive prepositional phrase defining the standard according to which an exposition is conducted. The letter coordinates that qualification with an adjective describing the interpretation as true.
Because the text breaks off before its predicate, we cannot compare the completed sentence’s syntax or determine how its opening μέν was subsequently balanced.
