Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

A chreia (khreia) is a brief saying or action making a point, attributed to some specified person or something corresponding to a person, and maxim (gnômê) and reminiscence (apomnêmoneuma) are connected with it. Every brief maxim attributed to a person creates a chreia. A reminiscence is an action or a saying useful for life. The maxim, however, differs from the chreia in four ways: the chreia is always attributed to a person, the maxim not always; the chreia sometimes states a universal, sometimes a particular, the maxim only a universal; furthermore, sometimes the chreia is a pleasantry not useful for life, the maxim is always about something [] useful in life; fourth, the chreia is an action or a saying, the maxim is only a saying. The reminiscence is distinguished from the chreia in two ways: the chreia is brief, the reminiscence is sometimes extended, and the chreia is attributed to a particular person, while the reminiscence is also remembered for its own sake. A chreia is given that name par excellence, because more than the other (exercises) it is useful (khreiôdês) for many situations in life, just as we have grown accustomed to call Homer “the poet” because of his excellence, although there are many poets.

The most general categories of the chreia are three: some are verbal (logikai), some describe an action (praktikai), some mixed. Verbal are those that have their authority through words, without action; for example, “Diogenes the philosopher, when asked by someone how to become famous, replied that it was by thinking least about fame.” There are two species of verbal chreias, declarative (apophantikon) and responsive (apokritikon). Of the declarative, some are statements volunteered by the speaker; for example, “Isocrates the sophist used to say that those of his students with natural ability were children of gods.” Others relate to a circumstance; for example, “Diogenes, the Cynic philosopher, seeing a rich young man who was uneducated, said ‘He is dirt plated with silver.’ ” Here Diogenes did not make a simple statement but one based on what he saw. In addition, there are four species of responsive chreias: in response to a question; in response to an inquiry; giving a cause for the answer to a question; and what is called “apocritical,” having the same name as the genus. A question (erôtêsis) differs from an inquiry (pysma) in that in response to a question it is necessary only to agree or disagree— for example, to toss or nod the head, or answer “yes” or “no”—while an inquiry demands a longer answer. Thus, a reply to a question is, for example, “Pittacus of Mitylene, when asked if anyone escapes the gods’ notice when doing wrong, said ‘No, not even in contemplating it.’ ” [] Anything added after the negative is superfluous, since the response is sufficient when he has made a denial. A pysmatic chreia is, for example, the following: “Theano, the Pythagorean philosopher, having been asked by someone how soon after sexual intercourse with a husband may a woman go to the Thesmophoreion, replied, ‘From her own husband, immediately, from somebody else’s, never.’ ” Those giving a cause for the answer to a question are those that, apart from the answer to the question, include some cause or advice or something of the sort; for example, “Socrates, having been asked if the king of the Persians seemed to him to be happy, said, ‘I cannot say, for I cannot know the state of his education.’ ” Apocritic chreias are those not in answer to a question or inquiry but in response to some statement; for example, “Once, when Diogenes was eating his lunch in the market place and invited Plato to join him, Plato said, ‘Diogenes, how pleasant your lack of pretension would be if it were not pretentious!’ ” Diogenes was not asking Plato about anything nor was he inquiring of him, but he simply invites him to lunch, which is neither. There is, besides these, also another species of chreia falling into the verbal category and called “double.” A double chreia is one having statements by two persons where either statement makes a chreia by one person; for example, “Alexander, the king of Macedon, stood over Diogenes when he was sleeping and said, ‘A man who is a counselor should not sleep all night’ (Iliad .), and Diogenes replied (with Iliad .), ‘A man to whom the people have been entrusted and who has many cares.’ ” In this case, there would have been a chreia even without the addition of the answer. Chreias are actional (praktikai) when they reveal some meaning without speech, and some of these are active, some passive. Active ones describe some action; for example, “When Diogenes the Cynic philosopher saw [] a boy eating fancy food, he beat his pedagogue with his staff.” Passive are those signifying something experienced; for example, “Didymon the flute player, taken in adultery, was hung by his name.” Mixed chreias are those that partake of both the verbal and the actional but have the meaning in the action; for example, “Pythagoras the philosopher, having been asked how long is the life of men, going up onto the roof, peeped out briefly, by this making clear that life was short.” And further, “A Laconian, when someone asked him where the Lacedaimonians set the limits of their land, showed his spear.” These then are the species of chreias. Some are expressed as gnomic sayings, some as logical demonstrations, some as a jest, some as a syllogism, some as an enthymeme, some with an example, some as a prayer, some with a sign, some as tropes, some as a wish, some with metalepsis, and others are composed of any combination of the ways just mentioned. Cf. Epictetus ... Diogenes’ point was that he was not a ruler. Cf. Libanius, Progymnasmata ..  Reading Didymôn with Lana and Butts (pp. –) for the Didymus of the mss; cf. Diogenes Laertius ..  I.e., hung from didymoi, “the twins,” = his testicles, as an appropriate punishment.   A chreia as a gnomic saying is, for example, “Bion the sophist said that love of money is the mother city of all evil.” As a logical demonstration, for example, “Isocrates the orator used to advise his acquaintances to honor teachers ahead of parents; for the latter have been only the cause of living but teachers are the cause of living well.” Isocrates expressed his statement with a logical reason. As a jest, for example, “When Olympias learned that her son Alexander was proclaiming himself the child of Zeus, she said ‘Will he not stop slandering me to Hera?’ ” Syllogistically, for example, “When Diogenes the philosopher saw a young man adorning his person excessively, he said ‘If you are doing it to attract husbands, you are making a mistake; if for wives, you are doing wrong.’ ” Enthymematically, for example, “When his acquaintance Apollodorus said to him, ‘The Athenians have unjustly condemned you to death,’ Socrates broke into a laugh and said, ‘Were you wanting them to do so justly?’ ” [] We need to add a proposition that it is better to be condemned unjustly than justly, which seems to have been omitted in the chreia but is potentially clear. With an example, as when Alexander, king of the Macedonians, being urged by his friends to amass money, said, “But even Croesus didn’t gain much from it.” In the form of a wish, for example, “Damon the athletic trainer had swollen feet; when his shoes were stolen, he said. ‘I hope they fit the thief!’ ” By using a sign, for example, “When Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, was asked by someone where he kept his treasures, ‘Here,’ he said, pointing to his friends.” As a trope (i.e., metaphor), for example, “Plato the philosopher used to say that the sprouts of virtue grow with sweat and toil.” With ambiguity, for example, “Isocrates the orator, when a boy  was being enrolled as a student with him and the person who was enrolling him asked what he needed to have, said, ‘A tablet kainou and a pencil kainou.’ ” It is ambiguous whether he means a tablet “and a mind” (kai nou) and a pencil “and a mind” or a new (kainou) tablet and new pencil. There is metalepsis whenever, in answering, someone changes what is said to something other than what is being asked; for example, “Pyrrhus the king of the Epirotes, when some people at a drinking party asked whether the flute player Antigennidas or Satyrus was the better, said, ‘To me, the general Polysperchon (is better).’ ” The combined form is not unclear, because it often occurs; for the gnomic can be melded into the jesting, or the use of a sign combined with an example, or ambiguity with metalepsis, or, simply put, there can be a combination of all the other forms, two or more being taken together into one chreia; for example, “Diogenes the Cynic philosopher, seeing a young man born from adultery who was throwing stones in the marketplace, told the youth to stop, ‘Lest out of ignorance [] you hit your father.’ ” The answer includes at one and the same time a sign and a jest. Chreias are practiced by restatement, grammatical inflection, comment, and contradiction, and we expand and compress the chreia, and in addition (at a later stage in study) we refute and confirm. Practice by restatement is self-evident; for we try to express the assigned chreia, as best we can, with the same words (as in the version given us) or with others in the clearest way. Inflection takes many forms; for we change the person in the chreia into all three numbers and do this in several ways: (expressing it as) one person speaking about one or two or more; and conversely two speaking about one and two and more, and also plural persons speaking about one and two and more. If the chreia is that Isocrates the orator said that those with natural ability are the children of the gods, we inflect it as one person speaking of one other by saying, “Isocrates the orator said that the student with natural ability was a child of gods”; and as two of two, that “The twin orators Isocrates said the twin students with natural ability are children of gods”; and as plural of plural, that “The orators Isocrates said the students with natural ability are children of gods.” From these examples it is evident how we shall inflect the other forms; for (the original statements) are changed into the five grammatical cases. But since some chreias report sayings, some actions, and some a mixture of both of these, and since there are in turn other species of these, in each of these we shall try to teach inflection on the basis of an example. The nominative presents no difficulty; for each of the chreias is customarily presented in that case. We practice the genitive as follows. If the chreia is a saying, we shall add to it that the saying “has become memorable,” or “The story is remembered of X saying. . . .” The former is appropriately added after the statement [] of the whole chreia; for example, “The saying of Isocrates, remarking (genitive) that those students with natural ability are children of gods, has become memorable.” The second phrase can be in the middle or in the beginning of the statement; for example, “Pittacus the Mitylenean’s saying, upon being asked if anyone escapes notice of the gods when doing wrong, is remembered: ‘Not even if contemplating it.’ ” “The story is remembered” well fits all chreias about a saying except for a volunteered statement; for that use “The saying of X . . . has become memorable.” If the chreia describes an action, and if that is passive, one should add, “The experience of X . . . has become memorable”; if it is active, “The action of X . . . has become memorable,” and similarly in the case of a mixed chreia. Each of these, of course, ought to be put at the end of the chreias; for example, “Of Didymon the flute player, having been taken in adultery and hung by his ‘name,’ the experience is memorable,” and “Of Diogenes the Cynic philosopher, seeing a boy eating fancy food and beating his pedagogue with his staff, the action is memorable.” In the dative case, in all chreias except the passive, we shall add “It seemed to X,” or “It appeared to X,” or “It occurred to X,” or “It came to X,” or something of that sort; for example, “To Diogenes the Cynic philosopher, seeing a rich young man who was uneducated, it seemed right to say, ‘He is dirt plated with silver.’ ” In the case of a passive chreia, we add “It happened to X”; for example, “To Didymus the flute player, being taken in adultery, it happened that he was hanged from his ‘name.’ ” In the accusative we shall generally add to every chreia, “They say,” or “It is said;” for example, Diogenes (accusative) the Cynic philosopher, on seeing a rich young man who was uneducated, they say to have said, ‘He is dirt plated with silver.’ ” The vocative is clear; for we address the remark to the person to whom the chreia is attributed as though present with us; for example, “O Diogenes, Cynic philosopher, on seeing a rich young man [] who was uneducated, did you say ‘He is dirt plated with silver?’ ” We can add a comment (epiphônein), appropriately and briefly approving what is said in the chreia, to the effect that it is true or noble or beneficial, or that other famous men have thought the same; for example, “Euripides the poet said the mind of each of us is a god.” We shall comment from the point of view of truth as follows: “For the mind of each is truly a god in regard to the benefits it brings by exhorting us and keeping us from loss.” A comment from that of the noble is, for example, “It is noble for each one to think god is not in gold or silver but in himself.” From that of the beneficial, the following: “. . . in order that we might not have ease of doing wrong by thinking that punishment lies far off.” From the witness of the famous, whenever we say that a wise man or lawgiver or poet or some other renowned person agrees with the saying; for example, in the chreia just mentioned we shall say (Odyssey .–), “For such is the mind of men who live on the earth / As the father of men and gods grants for a day.” We contradict chreias from their contraries; for example, against Isocrates’ saying that teachers ought to be honored above parents because the latter provided us with life, but teachers with living well. In opposition, we say that it would not be possible to live well if parents had not provided us with life. One should, however, understand that it is not possible to contradict every chreia, since many are said well and are in no way faulty, just as it is not possible to praise all, because the absurdity of some is immediately obvious. We expand the chreia whenever we lengthen the questions and answers in it, and the action or suffering, if any. We compress by doing the opposite. For example, this chreia is brief: “Epaminon The chreia is thus recast in indirect discourse with subject accusative and verb infinitive.  Euripides, frag. , ed. Nauck; sometimes attributed to Menander or other poets.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

It would seem then that the apomnemoneuma was a developed chreia roughly (to understand the difference between Justin's gospel and Papias's) corresponding to what we might call a 'pericope' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope
A chreia (khreia) is a brief saying or action making a point, attributed to some specified person or something corresponding to a person, and maxim (gnômê) and reminiscence (apomnêmoneuma) are connected with it. Every brief maxim attributed to a person creates a chreia. A reminiscence is an action or a saying useful for life. The maxim, however, differs from the chreia in four ways: the chreia is always attributed to a person, the maxim not always; the chreia sometimes states a universal, sometimes a particular, the maxim only a universal; furthermore, sometimes the chreia is a pleasantry not useful for life, the maxim is always about something [] useful in life; fourth, the chreia is an action or a saying, the maxim is only a saying. The reminiscence is distinguished from the chreia in two ways: the chreia is brief, the reminiscence is sometimes extended, and the chreia is attributed to a particular person, while the reminiscence is also remembered for its own sake. A chreia is given that name par excellence, because more than the other (exercises) it is useful (khreiôdês) for many situations in life, just as we have grown accustomed to call Homer “the poet” because of his excellence, although there are many poets.
A chreia is a pointed and concise saying or action, attributed to some specific person, reported for the correction of some things in life. It is a “saying or action” since it is found both in words and in deeds. It is “pointed” since the strength of the chreia lies in its being well aimed. It is “concise” as distinguished from reminiscences. It is attributed to some person to distinguish it from a maxim, for a maxim is not always attributed to a person. It is reported for the correction of some things in life, since for the most part some good advice is involved. The differences (between the chreia and the maxim) will be discussed in the chapter on maxim. [] It is called chreia (“something useful”), not that the other progymnasmata do not fulfill some use, but either because it has been especially honored with this common name as characteristic, in the way that Homer is called “the poet” and Demosthenes “the orator,” or because originally someone made use of it primarily from some circumstance and need.
It is interesting that chreia is rooted in chrestos
Since [26] a reminiscence (apomnemoneuma) shares advice-giving with the chreia and the maxim, it is necessary to explain its differences from them. It differs from the maxim in almost all the ways the chreia does, and from the chreia in the length of its statement; for a chreia is expressed in few words, while a reminiscence uses more. Xenophon is a witness of this in his work called Memorabilia
Maxim (gnômê) is a general statement, giving some counsel and advice for something useful in life. Although it shares the same divisions as the chreia, it differs in that the chreia consists of both words and deeds, the maxim of words alone; also in that a maxim is a general statement and not usually attributed to some person, while a chreia is always attributed to a person. In addition, a chreia includes reference to some circumstance, while a maxim consists in a number of words, for while furnishing an enthymematic demonstration of the subject, at the same time it provides general advice. Finally, they differ because a maxim always teaches either the choice of a good or avoidance of an evil, while a chreia is also cited for the sake of its charm alone. One might discover several other differences as well. Since [] a reminiscence (apomnêmoneuma) shares advice-giving with the chreia and the maxim, it is necessary to explain its differences from them. It differs from the maxim in almost all the ways the chreia does, and from the chreia in the length of its statement; for a chreia is expressed in few words, while a reminiscence uses more. Xenophon is a witness of this in his work called Memorabilia. Maxims also differ from each other. Some maxims are true, some credible; true when we say, (for example,) (Iliad .–): “A councilor should not sleep all through the night, / A man to whom the people are entrusted and who cares for many things.” For it is not appropriate for the leader of many to sleep all through the night. The following, for example, is credible: “Whatever man enjoys being with the wicked,” is himself like them; “I never asked, since I know that he is such as those with whom he likes to be.” This is credible because it happens that even a good man may be misled by associating with the wicked. Further, some maxims are simple, some double. This, for example, is simple: “It is not possible for anyone to find a life without suffering.” [] And this, for example, is double (Theognis, –): “You will be taught good things from good men; but if you mingle / With the bad, you will lose the wit you have.” Again, some maxims are stated without a reason, some have a reason added: without a reason, for example, “The master of the house is the one real slave”; with a reason, for example, (Odyssey .) “Be brave, that one who comes hereafter may speak well of you”; for the reason to turn to bravery is added.  Again, some maxims make clear how things are, as do chreias, and others how things should be: how things are, for example, “Most men are bad”; how things should be, for example, “Nothing too much.” They add some other divisions among maxims, some calling these “species,” some “differences” from each other, saying, for example, that some maxims are commands, as that “Be brave,” some wishes, as the one that says (Euripides, Medea ), “May a prosperous life not become a source of woe to me.” Some are prohibitory, for example, (Iliad .) “Do not wish to fight in rivalry with a better man than you”; some determinative, for example, (Odyssey .) [] “Since god always leads the like to the like.” In addition, they say that some maxims are ignoble, as for example, “Let me be called bad for making a profit”; some are noble, as (Iliad .), “One omen is best, to fight for one’s country.” The school of Siricius adds these distinctions and others add many more, but these should be evaluated on another occasion; now it is enough to say about them only that of the five parts of a speech—prooemion, narration, antithesis, solution, epilogue—and of the three parts of rhetoric—panegryical, judicial, deliberative— maxim gives practice in the same things as does chreia. Since these were separately explained above, there is no need here to repeat the same words. And of course the division of headings is the same. And since some progymnasmata are parts, some parts and wholes, maxim would be one of the parts; for by itself, without other material, it does not constitute a complete hypothesis, unless someone thought it enough, by denial alone, to reply to a whole speech: “Do not wish to fight in rivalry with a better man than you” (Iliad .). [] More rightly it should be thought one of the parts, as is the chreia as well. It has often been said, and by all writers of “Arts,” that the maxim is divided into the same headings as is the chreia. We mentioned this also in remarks about the chreia.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

So - oddly enough - when we apply this understanding to the situation at hand in early Christianity, we may surmise that those who called the gospel(s) memoirs (i.e. Justin) likely meant that the gospel was itself a collection of many individual 'memories' of the individual apostles. Perhaps this is why Justin's gospel naturally gave way to the understanding that it was a harmony - viz. the απομνημονευμασι of the apostles was itself made up of four principle gospels. I don't think this was the original sense that Justin used the term. I think we have to go back to Papias's idea of the gospel being made up of logia and that Mark somehow had arranged the logia in the wrong order but that that was ok. Papias's interest in witnesses and the living voice coupled with the idea that individual editors could arrange individual sections (sections which might have been understood to represent individual 'memoirs' of individual apostles) might help explain how we get from Papias's logion to Justin's collection of 'memoirs'.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

This is interesting too:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own and the ὑπομνήματα of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge

ὑπομνήματα
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

To this end it would seem to me that

(1) Nicolaus was a very early witness
(2) the followers of Nicolaus were a very early heresy mentioned prominently in the Apocalypse of John (for reasons that aren't clear)
(3) Nicolaus seems to have passed on a 'memoir' of Jesus
(4) it must have been very old or at least understood to be very old
(5) it references a post-resurrection incident where Jesus's dictum (it makes no sense as originating from Nicolaus) that the flesh should be abused was somehow connected with a rejection of marriage
(6) the story of his 'beautiful' wife seems to be connected with the heresies associated with the feminine hypostasis Horea/Norea and her abuse by the heavenly powers
(7) the various 'gnostic' heresies seem to be associated with this saying justifying the accusation that they shared wives in common and engaged in ritually sexualized activities.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

Another point of interest is the consistent tradition in the MSS that Nicolaus was the secretary for 'Matthew' and the underlying understanding in Clement that Nicolaus's 'memoir' and its chreia that 'the flesh must be abused' was somehow connected with 'Mattai.' We read:

Such also are those (who say that they follow Nicolaus, quoting an adage of the man, which they pervert, "that the flesh must be abused." But the worthy man showed that it was necessary to check pleasures and lusts, and by such training to waste away the impulses and propensities of the flesh. But they, abandoning themselves to pleasure like goats, as if insulting the body, lead a life of self-indulgence; not knowing that the body is wasted, being by nature subject to dissolution; while their soul is buffed in the mire of vice; following as they do the teaching of pleasure itself, not of the apostolic man ... They say that he had a pretty wife. After the Savior’s resurrection he was accused of jealousy by the apostles. He brought his wife out into their midst and offered her to anyone who wanted her in marriage. They say that his action was consistent with the saying "The flesh is to be treated with contempt." 88 Those who are members of his sect follow his word and act simply and uncritically, and indulge in unrestrained licence.

However, I learn that Nicolaus had relations with no woman other than his wedded wife, and of his children the girls grew to old age as virgins, and the son remained innocent. In these circumstances it was a rejection of the passions to wheel 89 out the wife, over whom he was charged with jealousy, into the middle of the apostles; and his control of the generally acknowledged pleasures was a lesson in "treating the flesh with contempt." I suppose that, following the Savior’s command, he did not want "to serve two masters," pleasure and God. (3) Anyway, they say that Matthias taught (τὸν Ματθίαν οὕτως διδάξαι) fighting against the flesh (σαρκὶ μὲν μάχεσθαι) and abusing (παραχρῆσθαι) it, never giving in to its desire for unrestrained pleasure, and enabling the soul to grow through faith and revealed knowledge.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

So let's start with παραχρῆσθαι. What does it mean? In Herodotus it is related to chrestos https://books.google.com/books?id=okg2A ... B9&f=false

παραχράομαι ,
A. [select] misuse, abuse, “οἱ μὲν οὐ χρῶνται, οἱ δὲ παραχρῶνται” Arist.Fr.56 ; “χρῶ μὴ παραχρώμενος” Ph.2.61 : c. dat., “π. τῷ σώματι” Plb.6.37.9, etc.; “π. ὥσπερ ἀνδραπόδοις” D.H.6.93.
2. [select] π. ἐς τοὺς συμμάχους deal wrongly or unworthily with them, Hdt.5.92.ά.
II. [select] treat with contempt, disregard, c. acc., Id.1.108, 4.159, 8.20 : part. παραχρεώμενοι, abs., of combatants, fighting without thought of life, setting nothing by their life, Id.7.223.
III. [select] use for a further or subsidiary purpose, Arist.PA688a23.
B. [select] Act. παραχράω , = παραχρηστηριάζω, Str.Chr.9.8.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by Secret Alias »

Ignore the Gospel of Matthew which identifies Nicolaus as being Matthew's secretary. That was a forgery of Simonides:

In 1861 Mayer was deceived into purchasing some spurious papyri of the gospel of Matthew and other scriptures, concocted by the impostor Simonides, who also induced him to publish them https://amphilsoc.org/sites/default/fil ... ones_0.pdf
“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
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:11 am Thanks Ben. Excellent work. The story is odd because it assumes that a prominent companion of the apostles was married (so it was at odds with Marcionism). Yet Marcionism or at least asceticism lurks in the background insofar as it reminds me of the story in the background of the History of the Coptic Fathers where Demetrius (Pope at roughly the time of Irenaeus through Origen) scandalized the church by assuming the post as a married man. Demetrius says what almost every married man knows 'hey my wife and I aren't having sex.' And then offers up his wife to be tested with fire if he is lying (sounds like a man who wants to be single again).

My point is that the offering up of his wife to marry other apostles might be interpreted in other circles as 'sharing your wife in common.' Indeed the story about Nicolaus is really a continuation of a long narrative which starts with the Carpocratians and their habit of keeping wives in common. It is curious that the section only 'works' if Clement is correct in assuming that Epiphanes was a Carpocratian. Since most scholars doubt this, we really have an early Platonist-Christian arguing that Christianity is essentially the fulfillment of Platonic speculation:
The followers of Carpocrates and Epiphanes think that wives should be held in common. 16 It is through them that the greatest ill-repute has accrued to the name of Christ. (2) This Epiphanes, whose writings I actually possess, was Carpocrates’ son. His mother’s name was Alexandria. On his father’s side he was an Alexandrian, on his mother’s he was from Cephallenia. His life lasted only seventeen years. At Same in Cephallenia he has been honored as a god. A shrine of quarried blocks of stone was built and dedicated to him there, together with altars, sacred precincts, and a university. The inhabitants of Cephallenia gather at the shrine at the time of the new moon, and offer sacrifice to Epiphanes to celebrate his apotheosis as if it were his birthday. There are libations, feasts and the singing 17 of hymns. (3) He was educated by his father in the general curriculum and in Platonic philosophy, and taught the knowledge of the Monad, l8 the source of the heresy of the Carpocratians.

6(1) In his work On Righteousness 19 he says, "God’s righteousness is a kind of social equity. 20 There is equity in the way the sky is stretched out in all directions and embraces the whole earth in a circle. The night is equitable in displaying all the stars. From above, God pours out the light of the sun, which is responsible for the day and father of the light, over the earth equally for all those with the power of sight. The gift of sight is common to all. (2) There is no distinction between rich and poor, ruler and ruled, 21 fools and wise, female and male, slave and free. 22 He treats even the irrational animals no differently; on all the beasts he pours out his sunlight equally from above; he ratifies his righteousness to good and bad, so that none can have more than their share or deprive their neighbors so as to have twice as much light as they. 23 (3) The sun draws up 24 from the ground food for all animals alike; his righteousness is shared by all and given to all equally. In this respect it is exactly the same for individual cows and cattle as a whole, individual pigs and pigs as a whole, individual sheep and sheep as a whole, and so on. (4) It is this common shared quality which is revealed as righteousness among them. The same principle of commonality applies to all the species of plants alike in their seeding. Food is available in common to all animals that pasture on the land, and to all equally. It is not regulated by any law, but is there for all, as it were, in unison, by the generous provision of the giver, the 25 one who has authorized it so. This, is his righteousness. 26

7(1) "Matters concerning the production of offspring do not involve any written law either (or it would have been handed down in writing). All beings sow their seeds and produce their offspring on equal terms, possessing an innate common disposition from the hands of righteousness. The author and Father of all gave to all alike on equal terms an eye to enable them to see. He made this dispensation out of his righteousness. He made no distinction between male and female, rational and irrational, no distinction of any kind. He dispensed sight by his grace to all alike by a single ordinance in accordance with the principle of equal sharing. (2) The laws," he goes on, "by their incapacity to punish human ignorance, actually taught illegal behavior. The individualism allowed by the laws cut damagingly at the roots of the universalism of God’s Law." He does not understand the Apostle’s dictum in the words: "It was through the Law that I knew sin." 27 (3) He suggests that "mine" and "yours" came into existence through the laws, so that the earth and possessions were no longer put to common use. 28 The same applies to marriage. (4) "For God has made vines for all in common; they do not deny the sparrow or the thief. So too with corn and the other fruits of the earth. It is transgression of the principle of common sharing and equality which has produced the thief of fruits and domestic animals.

8(1) "So God created everything for humanity in common. He brings the female to the male in common, 29 and joined all animals together in a similar way. In this he showed that righteousness is a combination of community and equity. (2) But those who have been born in this way have denied the commonality that unites births, and say, 30 ‘A man 3l should marry a single wife and stick to her.’ Everyone can share her as the rest of the animals show." (3) After these words, which I quote precisely, he goes on in the same vein to add, in these very words: "With a view to the maintenance of the race he has implanted in the male strong and energetic sexual desire. Law cannot make this disappear, nor can social mores or anything else. It is God’s decree." (4) How can this fellow still be listed in our church members’ register when he openly does away with the Law and the Gospels alike by these words? The former says, "You shall not commit adultery," the latter, "Everyone who looks with lust has already committed adultery." 32 (5) The words found in the Law, "You shall not lust," show that it is one single God who makes his proclamations 33 through the Law, prophets and Gospels. He says, "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife." 34 (6) The Jew’s neighbor is not the Jew, who is a brother of the same spirit. The alternative is that the neighbor is one of another race. How can a person who shares in the same spirit fail to be a neighbor? Abraham is father of Hebrews and gentiles alike. 35

9(1) If the adulteress and her paramour are both punished with death, it is surely clear that the commandment "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife" applies to the gentiles, so that anyone who follows the Law in keeping his hands off his neighbor’s wife and his sister may hear directly from the Lord: "But I say to you, you shall not lust." The addition of the pronoun "I" shows that the application of the commandment is more rigidly binding, (2) and that Carpocrates and Epiphanes are battling against God. Epiphanes 36 in that notorious book, I mean 37 On Righteousness, goes on like this, and I quote: (3) "So you must hear the words ‘You shall not lust’ as a joke of the Lawgiver, to which he added the even more ludicrous words ‘for your neighbor’s property.’ The very one who endows human beings with desire to sustain the processes of birth gives orders that it is to be suppressed, though he suppresses it in no other living creature! The words ‘for your neighbor’s wife’ are even more ridiculous since he is forcing public property to become private property."

These then are the doctrines of the excellent Carpocratians. These, so they say, and certain other enthusiasts for the same wickednesses, gather together for feasts (I would not call their meeting an Agape), men and women together. After they have sated their appetites ("on repletion Cypris, the goddess of love, enters," as it is said), then they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous "righteousness" is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will. After they have practiced community of use in this love-feast, they demand by daylight of whatever women they wish that they will be obedient to the law of Carpocrates-it would not be right to say the law of God. Such, I think, is the law that Carpocrates must have given for the copulations of dogs and pigs and goats. He seems to me to have misunderstood the saying of Plato in the Republic that the women of all are to be common. Plato means that the unmarried are common for those who wish to ask them, as also the theatre is open to the public for all who wish to see, but that when each one has chosen his wife, then the married woman is no longer common to all.

In his book entitled Magica Xanthus says: "The Magi think it permissible to have sexual intercourse with mothers and daughters and sisters, and that wives are to be held in common, not by force and in secret, but both parties may agree when one man wishes to marry another's wife. "Of these and other similar sects Jude, I think, spoke prophetically in his letter- "In the same way also these dreamers" (for they do not seek to find the truth in the light of day) as far as the words "and their mouth speaks arrogant things." [Strom. iii.1,2]
But here is where things get interesting - and I might want some help from you Ben. At the point we just left there is an abrupt change of topic. Marcion is referenced. Clement begins by noting the strangeness of the reference. He brings up Marcion even though Marcion was opposed to marriage. Then a long discussion of Marcionism and Platonism begins (3.12 - 25) which oddly returns to the subject of the Carpocratian sharing of wives in common:
From the heretics we have spoken of Marcion from Pontus who deprecates the use of worldly things because of his antipathy to their creator. The creator is thus actually responsible for his self-control, if you can call it self-control. This giant who battles with God and thinks he can withstand him is an unwilling ascetic who runs down the creation and the formation of human beings. 85 (3) If they quote the Lord’s words addressed to Philip, "Let the dead bury their dead; for your part follow me," 86 they should also reflect that Philip’s flesh was of the same formation, and he was not endowed with a polluted corpse. (4) Then how could he have a body of flesh without having a corpse? Because when the Lord put his passions to death he rose from the grave and lived to Christ. 87 (5) We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates. But when we mentioned Nicolaus’ remark we omitted one point. (6) They say that he had a pretty wife. After the Savior’s resurrection he was accused of jealousy by the apostles. He brought his wife out into their midst and offered her to anyone who wanted her in marriage. (7) They say that his action was consistent with the saying "The flesh is to be treated with contempt." 88 Those who are members of his sect follow his word and act simply and uncritically, and indulge in unrestrained licence.
There is something odd about this section. First of all, as we just mentioned, the connection between Epiphanes and Carpocrates is dubious. But then there is the question of this very long section about Marcion (even though Marcion has little or nothing to do with marriage in a section about sharing wives in common). Then after the Marcion section there is this 'take a breath again' statement taking us back to the original discussion after making reference to Marcion for no good reason for over ten chapters "We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates." But then most puzzling of all is the casual way AFTER A REMARKABLE SEGUE AND THE ALERT THAT WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC (sharing wives in common) THAT CLEMENT SEEMS TO CASUALLY REMARK UPON SOMETHING SAID IN THE PREVIOUS STROMATA.

Really? Look how bizarre the 'getting back to the original point after a ridiculously long segue sounds now:
We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates But when we mentioned Nicolaus’ remark we omitted one point - they say that he had a pretty wife.

ἐπεμνήσθημεν δὲ καὶ τῆς κατὰ Καρποκράτην ἀθέσμου γυναικῶν κοινωνίας, περὶ δὲ τῆς Νικολάου ῥήσεως διαλεχθέντες ἐκεῖνο παρελίπομεν. [3.4.25.6]
The translator breaks up the sentence (as is often the case) in order to make it more sensible in English. But the περὶ δὲ τῆς is literally saying "concerning moreover the" so:
We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates concerning moreover Nicolaus’ saying we omitted one point.
The fact that Clement links the previous discussion (= Carpocratian women in common from Plato) with the statement from Nicolaus (ostensibly from Book 2) is utterly incredible. It does not seem natural at all. I can't figure out any solution but I am not convinced this is original to the Stromata.
Maybe the connection between Marcion who opposed marriage and sex altogether and the Carpocratians kerping women in common is that keeping women in common is not what the oryhodox are pretending it is for this attack by insinuation but was originally female monasticism (celibate women living in common with each other) or the wives of the celibate but married men living in a commun together rather than with their husbands. This could explain the charge of jealousy against Nicolous if he made his wife live with him rather than with the other women.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Any Idea What Work Clement and Epiphanius Are Citing?

Post by andrewcriddle »

davidbrainerd wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:45 am
Maybe the connection between Marcion who opposed marriage and sex altogether and the Carpocratians kerping women in common is that keeping women in common is not what the oryhodox are pretending it is for this attack by insinuation but was originally female monasticism (celibate women living in common with each other) or the wives of the celibate but married men living in a commun together rather than with their husbands. This could explain the charge of jealousy against Nicolous if he made his wife live with him rather than with the other women.
Clement attributes keeping women in common to the Carpocratians on the basis of quotations from On Righteousness by Epiphanes.

IF The Epiphanes who wrote On Righteousness really was associated with the Carpocratians (I'm dubious) then keeping women in common did mean what the orthodox imply it meant.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply