Explicuerunt canones apostolorum missi ad Clementem in quibus sunt canones Nicenorum.Here end the canons of the apostles, sent to Clement, in which are the canons of Nicaea.
Of course what isn't said enough is that the collection this text comes from is identified as "The Arian collection of Verona: manuscript LI of the Library." Arius was famously "slapped down" by Athanasius for appealing to the Alexandrian tradition that came before him. Athanasius's argument is - crazily - they don't agree with you and even if they do they were heretics. Can't beat the Church Fathers for logic.
Arius certainly knew the Alexandrian tradition of St Mark. After all, Arius sat on the throne of St Mark in the Apostle and Evangelist's Martyrium, the "headquarters" of what I regard as a rival tradition to that of Europe and Rome. But that's another stoy. The point is that there should have been at least SOME inkling that the "Clement" who established the so-called "List of the Apostles" was Clement of Alexandria.
Of course for most people, the natural "go to figure" to identify this "Clement" associated with the "List of the Apostles" of course is Clement of Rome. After all, the "Roman Clement" was connected with Peter and Peter with the center of the "true Church" at Rome. But this is where Burke's attention to detail comes into play.
The NASSCAL site links to a Latin reference to Book Five of Clement of Alexandria's lost Hypotyposeis (a text actually referenced in the main body of all the "List of the Apostles"). So we have a tradition attributed to "Clement" where "Clement of Alexandria" is cited in the main body of the text as having develop a list of the Seventy in his Hypotyposeis where Mark's name notably does not appear:
Among the Savior’s apostles, the Seventy, were, according to what Clement relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes, Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas the namesake of Peter, Matthias who was reckoned with the Eleven, [V12 adds: Eubulus, Pudens, Crescens in the second (epistle to Timothy)] Barsabbas and Linus, who Paul mentions when writing to Timothy, Thaddaeus, Cleopas, and his companions.
But Zahn notes that a 13th century manuscript references Clement's Fifth Book of the Hypotyposesis also being the source of the list of the twelve apostles which bears striking similarity to the "List of the Apostles" attributed to "Clement" in the Arian catalog:
12. Der Marcianus lat. class. XXI cod. 10 (saec. XIII) hat nach Valentinelli, Bibl. ms. ad S. Marci Venetiarum, codd. Lat. tom. V p. 214 hinter der Historia scholastica des Petrus Comestor von anderer Hand folgendes Kapitel: [Petrus et Paulus Romae sepulti sunt; Andreàs Patrae civitate Acaiae; Jacobus Zebeduei in arce Marmarica; Joannes in Epheso; Philippus cum filiabus suis in Hierapoli Asiae; Burtholomaeus in Albone, civitate maioris Armenia(e); Thomas in Colamia civitate Judae (!); Matthaeus in montibus Parthorum; Marcus Alexandriae; Jacobus Alphaei iuxta templum; Thaddaeus et Judas in Britio Edessenorum; Simon Cleophas qui et Judas, post Jacobum episc. CXX annorum crucifixus est in Jerusalem, Traiano mandante; Titus Cretae; Crescens in Galliis;] Eunucus Candacis reginae, unus ex LXX apostolis, in Arabia quae felix est, ut . . ) Clemens in quinto libro hypotyposeon id est informationum [emphasis mine].
Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Peter, p. 80) says that, in addition to Dr. Chase’s collection of evidence about Peter’s sojourn in Rome, he can add one more item explicitly “from Clement of Alexandria,” because it is “taken from a note in the Codex Marcianus” (and Bigg points the reader to Zahn’s printing of that note: Zahn, Forschungen, iii, p. 70).
The key point is that the Codex Marcianus note itself is what causes the tradition “someone somewhere thought this was from Clement.” The note makes the ascription, not Zahn. Bigg then reports (in his own words) that Zahn doubts whether this statement is really derived from Clement, but (Bigg complains) Zahn gives no reason for the doubt; Bigg adds that the doubt is not compelling because we already know (via Eusebius, H.E. 1.12) that the fifth book of the Hypotyposeis contained apostolic material.
“Clement” here naturally means Clement of Alexandria (even if the text is pseudonymous). The phrase “Hypotyposeis” is doing almost all the work. That title is associated with Clement of Alexandria, not Clement of Rome. So once a manuscript note says “Clement, in the fifth book of the Hypotyposeis…,” later scholars can very easily read the ascription as “Clement of Alexandria,” even if they simultaneously think the apostle-list material is not genuinely Clementine (hence labels like “Pseudo-Clement”). Just look at the parallels between the List of the Apostles and Clement's Hypotyposeis:
| Slot | (a) Zahn / Codex Marcianus note (Latin) | (b) List of the Apostles | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Petrus et Paulus Romae sepulti sunt | (1) Simon Peter … (13) Paul … “is buried there [Rome]” | (a) compresses Peter+Paul into one burial notice in Rome; (b) separates them and adds preaching details. Core claim “Rome” matches. |
| 2 | Andreàs Patrae civitate Acaiae | (2) Andrew … “He died in Patras of Achaea” (in most Greek MSS) | Very close; (a) has exactly the Patras/Achaea death-place variant. |
| 3 | Jacobus Zebeduei in arce Marmarica | (3) James son of Zebedee … “died at … of Marmarica” | Same apostle, same distinctive geography (Marmarica). |
| 4 | Joannes in Epheso | (4) John … “He died in Ephesus” (in most Greek MSS) | Same endpoint “Ephesus,” with (b) adding Patmos/Asia details. |
| 5 | Philippus cum filiabus suis in Hierapoli Asiae | (5) Philip … “laid to rest in Hierapolis of Asia” + (AV3/Ethiopic add) “with his four daughters” | This is one of the strongest links: Hierapolis + the daughters motif is a hallmark of the expanded tradition, and (a) has it. |
| 6 | Burtholomaeus in Albone, civitate maioris Armenia(e) | (6) Bartholomew … (other Greek MSS/Ethiopic) “died in Albanopolis of Armenia Major” | Same “Alban-” toponym + “Armenia Major.” (a) is basically the Latinized version of that branch. |
| 7 | Thomas in Colamia civitate Judae (!) | (7) Thomas … (other MSS/Ethiopic) “died in the Indian town of Calamine” | The form is extremely suggestive: Colamia in (a) looks like a garbled Latin echo of Calamine in (b). The “Judae (!)” looks like a secondary mistake/gloss in the Latin line (your “(!)” is well-placed). |
| 8 | Matthaeus in montibus Parthorum | (8) Matthew … (other MSS) “he died in … of Parthia” | Both anchor Matthew in/near Parth- territory; (a) gives “mountains of the Parthians,” which fits the same family of locales. |
| 8a position | Marcus Alexandriae (inserted right after Matthew) | (8a) Mark notice (in AV3/Ethiopic) is inserted right after Matthew in your (b) | The placement is decisive: Zahn’s Latin list puts Mark exactly where the AV3/Ethiopic tradition inserts him—after Matthew, before James of Alphaeus. That’s a structural fingerprint, not a generic overlap. |
| 9 | Jacobus Alphaei iuxta templum | (9) James son of Alphaeus … “is buried there near the temple” | Close match: “near the temple” is the shared distinctive phrase. |
| 10 | Thaddaeus et Judas in Britio Edessenorum | (10) Thaddaeus … preached in Edessa … buried in Beirut | Same complex: Thaddaeus/Jude + Edessa. The Latin “Britio” may reflect confusion/contamination with Berytus/Beirut (or another toponym in the Edessene orbit), but the cluster “Thaddaeus/Judas + Edessa-connection” is clearly the same stream. |
| 11 | Simon Cleophas qui et Judas, post Jacobum episc. CXX annorum crucifixus est in Jerusalem, Traiano mandante | (11) Simon … son of Cleophas, also called Jude … succeeded James … lived 120 years … crucified under Trajan | This is essentially the same sentence, compressed. The “Cleophas,” the “also called Jude,” |
But here's the real kicker. If Clement is the "Clement" cite by our Arian codex as being the basis for the Nicene canons, the identification of Mark as an apostle, one of the twelve, who went to Alexandria, we have our clearest argument for the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore. This is because two of the most persistent justifications for doubting Clementine authorship of the letter suddenly disappear:
1. would Clement have thought that Mark had sufficient authority to write a gospel on his own authority rather than as Peter's mere interpreter?
2. would Clement have known a tradition of Mark's association with Alexandria when - critics argue - the first witness to Mark's association with Alexandria only comes with Eusebius?
Now with Tony Burke's link to Zahn's ignored scholarship on the Hypotyposeis the answer to both questions is a resounding yes.
