Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by andrewcriddle »

John2 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 2:02 pm
Read each one of those passages carefully. The passage from Sanhedrin, for example, is about which acts lead to punishment by death outside the temple. It does not allow nonpriests into the temple.
What about here?

San. 82b-83a:
... if the priest performs any of these sacrificial rites outside the Temple, although there are severe prohibitions with regard to performing the Temple service outside the Temple, he is exempt from karet.

And one is not liable for their performance, neither due to non-priesthood, if a non-priest performs one of those rites in the Temple, he is not liable to receive the death penalty; nor due to the performance of any of these rites in a state of ritual impurity; nor due to the performance of any of these rites as a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments; nor due to the performance of any of these services without the washing of his hands and feet. The reason for the lack of liability is that in all these cases, additional rites must be performed in order to complete the service. One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service.

From the baraita, one may infer: But one who burns the offering on the altar in one of these circumstances, including in a state of ritual impurity, is liable. What, is it not teaching that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and there is proof from the baraita to resolve Rav Aḥa bar Huna’s dilemma? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, he is liable for violating a prohibition, without the punishment of death.

The Gemara asks: But according to that understanding, as for the non-priest who is mentioned in the baraita together with the priest who performs the Temple service in a state of impurity, is he too liable for violating a prohibition, and not death, if he burns the offering on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death” (Numbers 18:7)? The Gemara answers: Do not extrapolate the liability of a non-priest from the liability of a ritually impure priest, as this case of ritual impurity is as it is, and that case of a non-priest is as it is; each situation is discussed independently.

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.82b?lang=bi
We also have to bear in mind that James is not presented as performing the service, only praying. So if a non-priest was not liable to receive the death penalty for performing rites in the Temple, why would one who only prayed be? "One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service."
IIUC this discussion in Tractate Sanhedrin is primarily concerned with sacrifices performed at the altar of burnt offering in the temple courtyard (the court of priests) which is just outside the holy place proper. When it refers to performing such rites outside the temple, it means fully outside the temple e.g. on the temple mount outside the temple courts or even further away. I don't think it is contemplating a layman performing an offering in the holy place itself.

Andrew Criddle
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 »

I've been stumped by the "he alone" thing in Hegesippus regarding James going into the "holy place" (which I'm at least comfortable thinking is not the Holy of Holies and means "he alone" among Christians or non-priests) and not knowing where else to look for any precedence or corroborating evidence for flexibility regarding non-priests ever being allowed into it.

But I've seen enough to say that there is clearly some kind of close relationship between Nazirites and priests (similar rituals that tie them closely to the Temple, both ultimately being "holy to God," wearing a "nezer," etc.) that goes back to the OT, where the rules for Nazirites are followed by the Priestly Blessings in Numbers 6.

And James appears to be a Nazirite in Hegesippus, which is supported by James' and others' affiliation with the Temple and arguably with Naziritism in Acts 21:23-26:
There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law ... The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.


So there doesn't seem to be anything strange about Hegesippus' description of James as a Nazirite. One could have that impression from Acts as well (or at least his concern with Naziritism and the Temple).

And Hegesippus' description of the "commotion" of the times and James' beating with a club is in keeping with how Josephus and the Talmud describe these times, with both naming the priestly family who killed James, and the latter saying that their servants beat people with clubs, as per Hegesippus of James.

And Hegesippus mentions three groups who "came together" to kill James, using the same word Mark 14:53 uses to describe the three groups who "came together" to kill Jesus (and is equivalent to the word Josephus uses to describe those who "assembled" to kill James); and while the three groups are compatible (priests, scribes, Pharisees), Hegesippus and Mark use different terms to describe them, which I think indicates that Hegesippus was not dependent on Mark but that each are independently describing the political/religious climate of the times.

And the way James' stoning is carried out in Hegesippus is more or less in line with the procedure for stoning in the Talmud (down to details like James' turning), which is consistent with Hegesippus being said to know Jewish oral traditions. And the protest of the Rechabite (who, like Nazirites, were quasi-priests) is in keeping with Josephus' reference to the protest of James' stoning by "the most equitable of the citizens."

So all this seems fairly normal and consistent with other sources to me, so the "he alone" part has had me stumped for awhile since it seems like the only potentially "wacky" thing Hegesippus says about James.

Then I realized the key is to take something else Hegesippus says seriously, something I've previously overlooked, and factoring that in to the equation.

In the big picture, in a climate where prominent priestly families (including the one that killed James) were willing to bend the rules pertaining to beating and killing people (including other priests), is it a stretch to suppose some people may have been willing to bend them to allow a lifelong Nazirite like James into the "holy place" to pray for the forgiveness of people in these times? Who could have allowed James to do this? In EH 2.23.10 Hegesippus says that because of James, "many even of the rulers believed," which is the part I've always overlooked. But now that I think about it, it seems consistent with what Acts 26:25-32 says about Paul, King Agrippa and Bernice:
"I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. After they left the room, they began saying to one another, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment."

Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
And this dovetails nicely with a link Stephan gave to an interesting article that mentions how Josephus relates that Bernice had taken a Nazirite-like vow:
Josephus tells the following story about Berenice (Jud. War 2.15.1):

She was visiting Jerusalem to discharge a vow to God; for it is customary for those suffering from illness or other affliction to make a vow to abstain from wine and to shave their heads during the thirty days preceding that on which they must offer sacrifices.

https://thetorah.com/queen-helena-of-ad ... d-history/

If Paul had some sway with King Agrippa and Bernice, why couldn't James, given his authority over Paul in Acts, in particular in matters pertaining to Naziritism? It does not therefore seem unreasonable to suppose that James, via Paul or directly, could have had something to do with Bernice's (or other rulers') Naziritism and belief in Jesus, and that such backing is what allowed him to enter the holy place and pray during these chaotic times.

Acts 15:5-6 also presents Pharisees as being a part of Christianity, about whom Josephus and the NT say had sway over the people and more or less ran the show and were in cahoots with the Herodians; and Acts shows them to have been influential enough to cause Christian apostles and elders to assemble a council in Jerusalem to consider their question:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion ...


And Paul had been a Pharisee too, and as Mk. 3:6 shows (in tandem with Josephus and rabbinic writings), Pharisees had considerable sway with the Herodians:
Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.


So perhaps James had access to rulers via Pharisees like Paul and the Christian Pharisees in Acts 15:5 (if not directly), which would account for Hegesippus' statement that "many even of the rulers believed" in Jesus because of James, and that having these connections allowed the rules to be bent so he could enter the holy place during this time when priestly families were wantonly beating and killing other priests and poor people, which of course is also forbidden by the Torah but was nevertheless allowed to take place.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:07 pm, edited 13 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Secret Alias »

I've been stumped by the "he alone" thing in Hegesippus regarding James going into the "holy place"
Second rate fiction
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 »

Second rate fiction
Perhaps not, for the reasons above, is all I'm saying.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ulan »

John2 wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:56 pm The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. After they left the room, they began saying to one another, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment."

Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
...

If Paul had some sway with King Agrippa and Bernice, why couldn't James, given his authority over Paul in Acts, in particular in matters pertaining to Naziritism?
Why do you even consider arguments like this? Note the "After they left the room...". It's a private conversation between three important historical figures. Why do you think this is anything else than fiction that was invented to make Paul look good?

The whole Jesus trial story suffers from a similar issue btw.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 »

Ulan wrote:
Why do you even consider arguments like this? Note the "After they left the room...". It's a private conversation between three important historical figures. Why do you think this is anything else than fiction that was invented to make Paul look good?

The whole Jesus trial story suffers from a similar issue btw.
I think this was typical of speeches in antiquity and have previously linked to this page that discusses it.
Making up quotes is not something ancient writers were embarrassed about. Here's Lucian, (2d century AD) 'splaining how authors should make up quotes in a way that showed off their eloquence.

"When it comes in your way to introduce a speech, the first requirement is that it should suit the character both of the speaker and of the occasion; the second is (once more) lucidity; but in these cases you have the counsel's right of showing your eloquence."

Lucian, How To Write History 58 (2d century AD) ...

"With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.

Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 1.22.1 (5th century BC) ...

Away back in bible times, nobody reading [Matthew] would have thought the magoi men literally stood together and actually spoke exactly these words. People reading "Matthew" back then understood that "Matthew's" "quotation" was an invention that captured what the magois thought about their mission. Or, more precisely, what "Matthew" thought the magois thought about their mission ...

So was "Matthew" a dirty liar? No, he wasn't. "Matthew" was a product of his time and place. In ancient times this is how people wrote history. In ancient times historians routinely, unashamedly, got their quotations by making them up.

http://pocm.info/pagan_ideas_phony_quotes.html
Granting this, why should we dismiss the information that Paul talked with Agrippa and Bernice, given the indications in Paul's letters that he was related to or at least associated with Herodians (I've more or less outlined them all on the forum before) and people in Caesar's household? And he says that his preaching, directly or indirectly, had come to the attention of the governor under King Aretas of Damascus in 2 Cor. 11:32-33 (though he did not seem to care for it). There is plenty of evidence outside of Acts that Paul moved and had some influence or was known in high circles.

Then we have Hegesippus saying that "many even of the rulers believed," and at least one of them during this period, Bernice, had taken a Nazirite vow, which is a subject that James is presented as being concerned about in Acts (and in Hegesippus). And other rulers of the time are presented by Josephus as dealing with the issue of Gentile circumcision (under the influence of someone called Ananias, who did not insist on circumcision; the same name, coincidently or not, as the person who is said to have converted Paul in Acts 9), and this is the central issue of the Jerusalem council in Acts as well.

Acts 15:5-7:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion ...

Ant. 20.2.3-4:
Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them ... and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it ... And when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said ... and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision ... So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing ... he said to him, "Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? ..."
So here are three Jews, one of them a merchant named Ananias and another one named Eleazar from Galilee, who had the ear of rulers with the backdrop being the issue of Gentile circumcision, just like in Christianity (and during the same time as Christianity). In both cases we have rulers involved with the issues of circumcision and Naziritism, under the influence of this or that Jewish person. The conversion of rulers, the issue of Gentile circumcision, Naziritism, Galileans, Ananias; these same themes are also in Acts and supported by Paul's letters. There does not seem to be anything unusual about this to me.

Additionally, there are other prominent rulers who are said or thought to have been part of early Christianity, such as Flavius Clemens.
Titus Flavius T. f. T. n. Clemens was a nephew of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. He was the son of Titus Flavius Sabinus, consul suffectus in AD 69, and a brother of Titus Flavius Sabinus, consul in AD 82. The emperors Titus and Domitian were his cousins ...

Clemens also married one of his cousins, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of Vespasian's daughter, Domitilla, who was thus also a niece of Domitian. They had two sons, whom Domitian intended to succeed him in the empire, renaming one of them Vespasian and the other Domitian. However, in AD 95, when Clemens and the emperor were consuls, Domitian had his cousin put to death.

According to Cassius Dio, Clemens was put to death on a charge of atheism, for which, he adds, many others who went over to the Jewish opinions were executed. This may imply that Clemens had converted to Judaism or Christianity, the former being more likely, and accompanied by circumcision. For the same reason, his wife was banished to Pandataria.

To this Clemens in all probability is dedicated the Basilica of San Clemente al Laterano, on the Caelian hill, which is believed to have been built originally in the fifth century, although its site is now occupied by a more recent, though very ancient, structure. In the year 1725 Cardinal Annibal Albani found under this church an inscription in honour of Flavius Clemens, martyr, which is described in a work called T. Flavii Clementis Viri Consularis et Martyris Tumulus illustrates. Some connect Clemens with Clemens Romanus, perhaps the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Fla ... s_(consul)

And 1 Clement of course gives us our earliest reference to the letters of Paul (and Paul mentions a Clement in Php. 4:3, right before his reference to "those who belong to Caesar's household" in 4:22). So there seems to be nothing unusual about Paul and people like him having the ear of rulers during this time period. And of course Acts made up what Paul, Agrippa and Bernice talked about, just like Josephus made up what Eleazar said to Izates.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ulan »

You know, the point that it was common for people to make things up in their historical fiction doesn't change anything about the issue that they made things up. It's especially uncertain where they drew the line and if there was any history in the proper sense as basis in the first place. This is especially true for completely unnecessary, extraneous statements like the one I singled out, which is nothing like adulation by the author.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 »

Ulan wrote:
It's especially uncertain where they drew the line and if there was any history in the proper sense as basis in the first place.
True, but what helps me think Paul may have talked with Agrippa and Bernice are the indications outside of Acts that Paul was cozy with (and possibly even related to) the Herodians and "those who belong to Caesar's household," as Bird, for example, discusses here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pU0VC ... ul&f=false

I would add possibly Epaphroditus to these connections as well, who Paul calls "my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs" in Php. 2:25. If this was Nero's secretary (and possibly even Josephus' patron) of the same name then it puts Php. 4:22 in a different light ("All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household"). Paul mentions Epaphroditus again in 4:18 right before he gives this greeting ("I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God").

And if Paul's reference to "those of Caesar's household" means slaves or freedmen, as some argue, this is what Epaphroditus was (and is implied by his name). As Wikipedia puts it:
His name originates from the Greek language and means "lovely, charming" combined with the name Aphrodite ... The Romans often gave slaves of Greek origins illustrious names from Greek mythology and culture, for example Claudius's freedman Narcissus, Nero's freedman Polyclitus and Antonia Minor's freedwoman Caenis ...

We do not know for certain who Epaphroditus' master was, but it is likely that he was freed by the Emperor Claudius (41-54). Because freedmen usually accepted the name of their former master, as an Imperial freedman, the official name of Epaphroditus was Tiberius Claudius Epaphroditus, to which Augusti libertus ("freedman of the emperor") could be added. Epaphroditus was an Imperial freedman and secretary (Latin: a libellis), which means that he drafted the Emperor Nero's replies to petitions. He is mentioned as apparitor Caesarum, which means that he was some sort of servant of the Imperial Family ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epaphroditos
So the idea that Paul talked with Agrippa and Bernice, as per Acts, does not seem strange or unlikely to me given the connections he appears to have had outside of Acts, and I don't hold it against ancient writers for making up dialogue. Take Acts 12, for example.

http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/12.htm

Here Peter is imprisoned by King Agrippa, with plenty of dialogue, such as from an angel (12:7-8), Peter's private thoughts (12:11), and Rhoda's response to Peter's knock on the door (12:13-14). If we only had Acts, sure, I'd say all of this is "worthless." But we also have Josephus' account of a Simon who led an "assembly" (ecclesia) in Jerusalem and had an encounter with Agrippa during this same time.

I've always thought it was strange that this Simon ended up acquiescing to Agrippa and begged for his pardon, but now it reminds me of Peter, since Paul portrays him as being a waffler on the issue of ritual purity too in Galatians, and Josephus' Simon is also said to have made a speech (like Peter is said to have done); and as Ben notes in a comment below, both accounts mention Caesarea.

Ant. 19.7.4:
However, there was a certain man of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly [ecclesia], while the king was absent at Caesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holily, and that he might justly be excluded out of the temple, since it belonged only to native Jews. But the general of Agrippa's army informed him that Simon had made such a speech to the people. So the king sent for him; and as he was sitting in the theater, he bid him sit down by him, and said to him with a low and gentle voice, "What is there done in this place that is contrary to the law?" But he had nothing to say for himself, but begged his pardon. So the king was more easily reconciled to him than one could have imagined, as esteeming mildness a better quality in a king than anger, and knowing that moderation is more becoming in great men than passion. So he made Simon a small present, and dismissed him.
This acquiescence to authority is also in keeping with 1 Peter 2:13-17:
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Ben asked regarding these similarities:
Do you think that this Simon's brush with Agrippa could be what lies behind Peter's imprisonment by him in Acts 12? After Peter's escape it is mentioned (in verse 19) that Agrippa spent time in Caesarea, as Josephus mentions, too. Could the prison escape be a cover story for Peter's unseemly acquiescence to Agrippa? (Nooooo, he did not crumble under pressure; he was put in prison and an angel helped him to escape!)
When I take these other sources (Josephus, 1 Peter, Galatians) into consideration, I think there could be something to Acts' account of Peter's imprisonment by Agrippa despite the made up dialogue (and which would also be the case for Josephus' account above). When I take everything into consideration, it looks like Peter had some kind of encounter with Agrippa. Likewise, it looks like Paul could have met Agrippa and Bernice (and perhaps had some sway with them).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Hegesippus on James may possibly be paralleled in Philostratus Life of Apollonius book one.
And having said this he [Apollonius] declined to live upon a flesh diet, on the ground that it was unclean, and also that it made the mind gross; so he partook only of dried fruits and vegetables, for he said that all the fruits of the earth are clean. And of wine he said that it was a clean drink because it is yielded to men by so well-domesticated a plant as the vine; but he declared that it endangered the mental balance and system and darkened, as with mud, the ether which is in the soul.

After then having thus purged his interior, he took to walking without shoes by way of adornment and clad himself in linen raiment, declining to wear any animal product; and he let his hair grow long and lived in the Temple.
(I owe this suggestion to FS Jones)

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:13 am Hegesippus on James may possibly be paralleled in Philostratus Life of Apollonius book one.
And having said this he [Apollonius] declined to live upon a flesh diet, on the ground that it was unclean, and also that it made the mind gross; so he partook only of dried fruits and vegetables, for he said that all the fruits of the earth are clean. And of wine he said that it was a clean drink because it is yielded to men by so well-domesticated a plant as the vine; but he declared that it endangered the mental balance and system and darkened, as with mud, the ether which is in the soul.

After then having thus purged his interior, he took to walking without shoes by way of adornment and clad himself in linen raiment, declining to wear any animal product; and he let his hair grow long and lived in the Temple.
(I owe this suggestion to FS Jones)
Oh! Good one; here is the Greek:

Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.8: 8 Ἡγουμένου δὲ αὐτὸν τοῦ Εὐξένου μεγάλης διανοίας ἅπτεσθαι καὶ ἐρομένου, ὁπόθεν ἄρξοιτο “ὅθεν περ οἱ ἰατροί”, ἔφη “καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι καθαίροντες τὰς γαστέρας τοὺς μὲν οὐδὲ νοσεῖν ἐῶσι, τοὺς δὲ ἰῶνται.” καὶ εἰπὼν τοῦτο τὰς μὲν ἐμψύχους βρώσεις ὡς οὔτε καθαρὰς καὶ τὸν νοῦν παχυνούσας παρῃτήσατο, τραγήματα δὲ καὶ λάχανα ἐσιτεῖτο, καθαρὰ εἶναι φάσκων, ὁπόσα ἡ γῆ αὐτὴ δίδωσι, καὶ τὸν οἶνον καθαρὸν μὲν ἔφασκεν εἶναι πῶμα ἐκ φυτοῦ οὕτως ἡμέρου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἥκοντα, ἐναντιοῦσθαι δὲ τῇ τοῦ νοῦ συστάσει διαθολοῦντα τὸν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ αἰθέρα. μετὰ δὲ τὴν κάθαρσιν τῆς γαστρὸς τοιαύτην γενομένην ἀνυποδησίαν τε ποιεῖται κόσμημα καὶ λίνου ἐσθῆτα ἀμπίσχεται παραιτησάμενος τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων, ἀνῆκέ τε τὴν κόμην καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἔζη. ἐκπεπληγμένων δὲ αὐτὸν τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ ποτε πρὸς τὸν ἱερέα φήσαντος, ὡς χαίροι θεραπεύων τοὺς νοσοῦντας ὑπὸ Ἀπολλωνίῳ μάρτυρι, ξυνῄεσαν ἐς τὰς Αἰγὰς ἐφ' ἱστορίᾳ Κίλικές τε αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ πέριξ, ὅ τε Κιλίκιος λόγος ποῖ τρέχεις; ἦ ἐπὶ τὸν ἔφηβον; ἐπ' ἐκείνῳ τε ἐλέγετο καὶ παροιμιώδη τιμὴν ἔσχεν. / 8 Now Euxenus realized that he was attached to a lofty ideal, and asked him at what point he would begin it. Apollonius answered: "At the point at which physicians begin, for they, by purging the bowels of their patients prevent some from being ill at all, and heal others." And having said this he declined to live upon a flesh diet, on the ground that it was unclean, and also that it made the mind gross; so he partook only of dried fruits and vegetables, for he said that all the fruits of the earth are clean. And of wine he said that it was a clean drink because it is yielded to men by so well-domesticated a plant as the vine; but he declared that it endangered the mental balance and system and darkened, as with mud, the ether which is in the soul. After then having thus purged his interior, he took to walking without shoes by way of adornment and clad himself in linen raiment, declining to wear any animal product; and he let his hair grow long and lived in the Temple. And the people round about the Temple were struck with admiration for him, and the god Asclepius one day said to the priest that he was delighted to have Apollonius as witness of his cures of the sick; and such was his reputation that the Cilicians themselves and the people all around flocked to Aegae to visit him. Hence the Cilician proverb: "Whither runnest thou? Is it to see the stripling?" Such was the saying that arose about him, and it gained the distinction of becoming a proverb.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply