Does Ὠριγένης Mean the Same Thing as Ἁρποκράτης?

[Secret Alias]

I don't know who can answer this question. It is odd enough to have a major Church Father named after an Egyptian god but Ὠριγένης = Ὧρος ("Horus") + γένος ("born") and Har-pa-khered Horus the child. But how far apart is that? Wouldn't that explain the origin of Origen viz. that Origen was Carpocrates?

[Stuart]

Origen, Ὠριγένης, much more likely means "Son of Horus" from Ὧρος, "Horus", and γένος, "born"
He is supposedly from Alexandria

Horus' origins may be of value. Pulled from wikipedia

Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis, which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish, or sometimes depicted as instead by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a golden phallus to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving).

Could this be the origin of the castration story? After all it was put forth by Eusubius, who's accuracy is rather dubious at times. But the recovery of Osiris' body by Isis, minus his penis seems a more likely explanation. Basically they are calling him "dick-less." It also suggests Origen is a pen-name.

Origen was associated with Adamantios, Ἀδαμάντιος, "the unbreakable one". The association of Origen with Novatanism (post Decian Persecution), suggests traditional dating probably places Origen a couple decades earlier than he actually lived.

I am curious how you can argue the celibate Origen is one and the same as Mr. sex and drugs lifestyle Carpocrates. To do so could make a Sean Spicer press briefing look like a truth session.

[Secret Alias]

I think where we differ to a large degree is the way that you simply accept that whatever the Church Fathers report must be a DIRECT reporting of evidence related to the sect in question. So for instance when we look to the licentious nature of Nicolaus, we have all this stuff - 'evidence' you might call it - but at bottom there is Clement of Alexandria's qualification that Nicolaus himself wasn't a pervert only 'disciples' of his. Indeed he points to a strange story about Nicolaus offering his wife to the other disciples as the source of the confusion. Ehrman has demonstrated that the sexual perverted stories of Epiphanius's Phibionites or whatever they were called are wholly invented. So why should the statements about the 'Carpocratians' be believed?

Our introduction to the 'Carpocratians' comes by way of Hegesippus who in fact doesn't mention them by name but rather references a Marcellina who we learn from later sources 'was a follower of Carpocrates.' If Hegesippus didn't mention the relationship where did it come from? Celsus makes reference to two sects separate sects - 'those of Marcellina' and 'the Harpocratians of Salome.' Given that Carpocrates is a bizarre and almost unattested name, the likelihood here is that Celsus's Harpocrates was transformed into the unusual 'Carpocrates' somewhere along the way (by dictation?). That source was likely Irenaeus. Irenaeus took the story of the Marcellians from Hegesippus and strangely planted it in a section dealing with 'Carpocrates.' Any story dealing with 'wanton women' like Marcellina is going to be immediately sexualized.

At the same time the Marcellina story is clearly behind the birth of Marcion. The two have parallel lives arriving at Rome under the same Anicetus and are often interchanged. One must imagine that Hegesippus was preserved in a corrupt and varied form. Irenaeus's choice to avoid making 'Marcellina' or the 'Marcellians' into a sect of their own and instead associate them with the Carpocratians might be related to the manner in which the author of the Philosophumena knew of Irenaeus and used an older version of Adversus Haereses which (a) did not have a Valentinian section but did have a section against the Marcosians and (b) did not have a Marcion section. This explains why the Philosophumena's Marcion is wholly different than Irenaeus (i.e. a Marcion who corrupted Mark rather than Luke, who posited a dualism between love and war, rather than good and evil etc).

In short, any sexualized account of a heretical group may be discounted especially those which claim things like group orgies and the like. It should be noted that the central claim of Clement's account of the Carpocratians 'sharing women in common' seems to be derived from Epiphanes's reading of Plato's Republic. Not only is Epiphanes's relationship with Carpocrates equally dubious to Marcellina's the argument that Epiphanes makes (from memory) can't really be used to justify orgies. If anything it seems to be derived from the aforementioned story about Nicolaus - viz. the apostle's offering up of his wife to his brothers and thus an example of 'sharing wives in common.'

Even though our earliest evidence of actual monastic communities in Christianity comes from the fourth century it is impossible to believe that this when it began. There seems to be a great emphasis on celibacy if not ritualized castration within Christianity from the very beginning. The question of course was always to what degree did Christianity tolerate 'normal living' - i.e. marriage, having children, women etc. Demetrius the patriarch of Alexandria scandalized the community by having a wife. This seems to be the first time that marriage was introduced to the Egyptian Church. Demetrius was an outsider even by the accounts of the Egyptian tradition. He was the beginning of something new and likely sanctioned from a secular source outside of the native Christian community.

That we see Clement and Origen flee Egypt seems to follow a pattern which would continue for the next two hundred or so years - i.e. native Egyptian monasticism settling in Palestine. I would imagine that once the authority of the Alexandrian Church was lost it was difficult to control the dogma of related 'sects.' Origenism seems to have been one such sect. It wasn't true Alexandrian Christianity. For one it accepted the fourfold canon of the Church beyond Egypt but interpreted it in a manner which (I believe) secretly remained faithful to many of the original beliefs of Egypt. This is why Origenism survived. It was a crypto-Alexandrian tradition much in the manner that the Donme outwardly accepted Islam but secretly continued to practice its original faith in as close an original manner as possible to the original doctrine.

My guess is that the origin of the sexualized stories associated with the 'Carpocratian sect' were ultimately derived from pagan criticisms and gossip of Egyptian Christianity generally. While it is hard for us to imagine today, eunuchs although sexually neutered were considered to be sexual objects in antiquity. Much like modern Africa, what we call homosexuality as such was defined in terms of a passive/aggressive scale. If an African man is caught penetrating another African man in sexual relations only the passive male is defined as 'gay.' The aggressor in ki-Swahili is referred to as a 'player' (= basha) or virile male. This is especially true in situations involving foreigners or (in the case where Africans go off to work in Europe and especially Italy where apparently there are a multitude of homosexuals or men who pay other men especially black men to penetrate them).

The idea seems to be that virile male can't control his sexuality because of his abundant virility. He will attempt to engage any available object as a sexual object (which, to the point of absurdity would include sisters and friends of his wife, animals, inanimate objects like trees and holes in walls and of course even other passive males). While there are few eunuchs in modern Africa, given that these notions of sexuality were certainly shared in the ancient world, it would not at all be difficult to see that an attractive eunuch would be imagined as a sexual object. Indeed his lack of genitals would serve to confirm that this was a 'one way' relationship and thus 'proving' in effect that the relationship between the two 'men' was not what we call 'gay.'

I've spent way too much time on this but here is a concise list of references to eunuchs as sex objects in antiquity - https://books.google.com/books?id=zMqED ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

I should (or perhaps shouldn't) mention that in my travels another strange phenomenon I have noticed is 'ethnic' women (mostly of Italian background) who embrace or accept their husband's interest in pornography not as a sign of perversion but as 'proof' of his overwhelming virility. My aunt (who isn't around any longer), when I asked her why she had the Canadian equivalent of Skinemax on their cable bill) proudly equated her husbands virility 'spilling over' to his pornographic interest. When I was single back in Toronto many of my Italian-Canadian associates when hearing of my exploits made reference to possessing (back in those days) a massive pornographic video tape collection. When I asked them - almost scandalized - what their wives thought about this, they matter of factly told me that they approved and almost embraced it as testimony of their virility. Similarly some/many women accept their husband's infidelity as a consequence of their virility. Indeed in a way this last category makes a lot of more sense than the inverse - women who don't have sex with their husbands but get outraged when they get caught 'cheating' on them.

My point is simply to say that the logic of sexuality isn't 'linear' except perhaps in the dynamic of 'getting it' or 'not getting it.' For those of us who spend our time reading books and 'not getting it' we try and impose some sort of order or logic to what is essentially an illogical act. Sex is simply an expression of power. That is its only logic. In order to have a successive sexual relationship you have to have two people willing to buy into the myth of the two people being 'powerful' - attractive or attracted. In my experience ugly people often times have more sex than beautiful people. Indeed if anything the more beautiful the woman the less she needs to buy into the powerful myth of another man. Show me an insecure woman and I will show you someone who will buy into sex with a man. Bottom line - sex is a stupid act, so don't expect much 'linear' thought to it outside of power.

[MrMacSon]

That we see Clement and Origen flee Egypt seems to follow a pattern which would continue for the next two hundred or so years - i.e. native Egyptian monasticism settling in Palestine.

Certainly there is evidence of Egyptian religions spreading around the eastern Mediterranean through the 1st to 3rd centuries ad (there is far more archaeological evidence for them then that for Christianity).

I would imagine that once the authority of the Alexandrian Church was lost it was difficult to control the dogma of related 'sects.' Origenism seems to have been one such sect. It wasn't true Alexandrian Christianity.

There is no evidence for an Alexandrian church or 'Alexandrian Christianity' before Origen -

Philip Carrington, trying to portray Alexandrian Christianity in the second Christian century, comments:

• We have a list of bishops, however, with the number of years they held office, which is preserved in the pages of Eusebius. If we start in the year 62, a number obtained by working backwards from 190, the approximate date of the accession of Demetrius, we find that it works out like this: Annianus (or Hananiah) 62, Avilus 84, Cerdon 98, Primus 109, Justus 119, Eumenes 130, Marcus 143, Celadion 153, Agrippinus 167, Julian 178, and Demetrius 190. Demetrius is the first bishop about whom we have any real information. Annianus occurs in legend. The rest are mere names. [1957:II.44]

Carrington's observation was not new. As early as the beginning of the twentieth century, Adolf von Harnack had commented that "The most serious gap in our knowledge of primitive church history is our almost total ignorance of the history of Christianity in Alexandria and Egypt ... until about the year 180 (the episcopate of Demetrius)" [1908:158]. This theme had been reiterated by Walter Bauer: "We first catch sight of something like 'ecclesiastical' Christianity in Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria from 189 to 231" [1934:53]. And even they were merely echoing not merely Eusebius' own accounting, but the kind of presentation which had become "canonical" from the development of the "History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria" [HPCCA], originating traditionally with Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa' a contemporary of the "sixty-second" patriarch Abraham (975-978), which remains a principal text of Coptic historiography [Johannes den Heijer, 1991: 1238-1242 with bibliography]....


.. "[Demetrius] was the bishop, according to the tenth-century annalist Eutychius who appointed other bishops, for the first time, in the land of Egypt" {1957:II.385; a Latin translation from the original Arabic of the Annals, by Eutychios, the Melkite or Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria [877-940, from 935; cf. ODByz II.760 (SHGriffith)], is presented in Patrologiae Graeca CXI columns 907-1156, with this specific reference at column 982; cf. column 989}.

The History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic (or Monophysite) Church of Alexandria not only displays this comparable division, lacking as much as Eusebius any real data on those before Demetrius, but then begins the account of Demetrius with a most peculiar anecdote [HPCCA Pt.I, pp.154-155 s.v. "Demetrius"]:

When the patriarch Julian was dying, an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream, on the night before his death, and said to him: "The man who shall visit thee tomorrow with a bunch of grapes shall be patriarch after thee." Accordingly, when it was morning, a peasant came to him, who was married, and could neither read nor write; and his name was Demetrius. This man had gone out to prune his vineyard, and found there a bunch of grapes, although it was not the season of grapes; so he brought it to the patriarch. And the patriarch Julian said to the bystanders: "This man shall be your patriarch; for so the angel of the Lord last night declared to me." So they took him by force, and bound him with iron fetters. And Julian died on that very day; and Demetrius was consecrated patriarch.

Whether this story be authentic or not, its preservation says much, while enabling the subsequent lengthy paragraphs to discuss within the Coptic church at Alexandria the serious question, "How is it lawful that a patriarch should be married?" -- which allows us to assume considerable information relative to the background of this man....

http://www.dacb.org/stories/egypt/demetrius.html

A lot of 'history' comes from the narrations of Eusebius -

.. While there are hints of a larger bibliography stemming from Demetrius, especially a letter related to the calculation of the dates for the fast before and for the feast of Easter written to Victor bishop of Rome and to others, including Gabium bishop of Jerusalem and Maximus bishop of Antioch [see Eutychius of Alexandria, Annals, in PG CXI column 989], partially preserved among Coptic and Oriental sources (DECL 166), we are essentially limited to those few letters from Demetrius to which Eusebius has made reference, and these seem primarily to have dealt with matters arising from the changing perspective upon Origen. {On the matter of the controversy regarding the dates of Easter at this point in Christian history, see Bede, "The Reckoning of Time", TTH 29 (1999) 203-204, which cites Victor's letter, [(sub anno mundi 4146) from Jerome (Chronicle 210.9-10) and from Liber pontificalis 15 in TTH 6 (1989) 6] with support by synodical letter from Theophilus bishop of Caesarea in Palestine [based on Jerome (J43 = FOTC 100 68)].}

Origen had become popular in divine instruction [H.E.VI.8.6], but also sought his own enhancement by attending the lectures of Hippolytus (c.155-235; ODP 14-15) at Rome [J61; NPNF 2/3 (1892) 375] some time during the episcopal administration of Victor's successor, Zephyrinus (198-217; ODP 12-13), from which Demetrius sought by letter Origen's return to Alexandria [H.E.VI.14.10-11]. Eusebius inserts at this point in his narrative the vaguely put episode that "one of the military appeared in the scene and delivered letters to Demetrius, the bishop of the community, and to the then governor of the province of Egypt, from the ruler of Arabia, to the intent that he should send Origen with all speed for an interview with him." Origen "duly arrived in Arabia, but soon accomplished the object of his journey thither, and returned again to Alexandria" [H.E.VI.19.15].

Robert McQueen Grant, sorting out and documenting the details, makes all but the exact dating specific: "Probably around 214 the Roman legate of Arabia (possibly Furnius Iulianus, consul designate in that year) sent an officer to Alexandria with letters addressed to both Demetrius and to the prefect of Egypt, L[ucius] Baebius Aurelius Iuncinus, asking the latter to send Origen to him for an interview. This request was highly important. The legate implicitly recognized the authority of Demetrius, under the prefect of Egypt, over the movements of his subordinate Origen" (1970:204; cf. Carrington 1957:II.441)...

...H.E.VI.19.16-19; cf. Carrington 1957:II.441].

On a third occasion, "when [at Rome] Pontianus [bishop 230-235] succeeded Urban" [bishop 222-230; cf. ODP 15-16], to confront heresies among the churches of Achaia, Origen "undertook a journey to Athens, by way of Palestine, authorized by an ecclesiastical letter" from Demetrius [J54; NPNF 2/3 (1892) 373-374; cf. H.E.VI.23.3-4; 32.2].

On each of these three instances, Demetrius' attitude toward Origen appeared to remain in that same positive mode which had initially appointed this brilliant scholar as head of his famed Catechetical School. But during the latter occasion, as Origen passed through Palestine, "because of an urgent necessity there," he "received the laying-on of hands for the presbyterate at Caesarea from the bishops there" [H.E.VI.22.4], namely, Theoctistus of Caesarea with the assistance of Alexander of Jerusalem [so Lawlor 1928:194 commenting on H.E.VI.8.4]. On aspects of the controversy engendered, with reference to letters exchanged, see Jerome [J62 sub Alexander = FOTC 100 (1999) 90], including that of Alexander's "Against Demetrius in Defense of Origen" [cf. H.E.VI.19.17]...

... the historical account itself is derived from the perspective of Eusebius, not only a defender of Origen, but one whose own role in the Council of Nicaea (325) and its era of increasing reevaluation of all theology, including that of Origen, subsequent to more refined credal developments precisely at that Council, undoubtedly gives a somewhat jaundiced view of Demetrius and his total thought and administrative hand at Alexandria in the preceding days of rapidly evolving ecclesiatical structures.

Only the exact dating of the passing of Demetrius from the scene remains of relative vagueness. By virtue of Eusebius' greater preoccupation in Book VI of his Ecclesiastical History with the life and achievements of Origen, Demetrius' death, after "having continued in the ministry for forty-three entire years," is defined as "not long afterwards" with reference not to some event in that ministry, but to the fact that "Origen removed [himself] from Alexandria to Caesarea, leaving Heraclas [q.v.] the Catechetical School for those in the city" in the tenth year of the imperial administration of Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander [1 October 208 - mid-March 235, reigning from 6 March 222], further noting that Demetrius himself was succeeded as bishop of Alexandria by this same Heraclas [H.E.VI.26; cf. Lawlor 1928:264-265 for commentary upon this matter]. The Coptic Church [HPCCA Pt.I, p.162] and the Melkite Church [Eutychius, Annals], both of Alexandria, later remembered and applauded Demetrius chiefly for his originating opposition to Origen, but by then Origen and Origenism had long been condemned [at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553; on which see Pelikan 1 (1971) 277, 337-338 and ODCC3 (1997) 1195]

Clyde Curry Smith

http://www.dacb.org/stories/egypt/demetrius.html

[Secret Alias]

There is no evidence for an Alexandrian church or 'Alexandrian Christianity' before Origen

Do you really think you know the sources as well as I do? Really? Please don't go down this path ...

[MrMacSon]

There is no evidence for an Alexandrian church or 'Alexandrian Christianity' before Origen

Do you really think you know the sources as well as I do? Really? Please don't go down this path ...

You'll be happy to provide said sources?

[Stuart]

Stephen,

Actually it is you who rely much more heavily upon the church fathers. You read the 4th and 5th century gossip as if it were fact. You are especially fond of Eusubius. I however consider him for the most part providing an inconsistent and inaccurate history, as well as implausible.

I put forward here a simple explanation about how the story of Origen's castration may be a play on the name Origen, to basically say he was "dickless" like his namesake's father - a joke we all get. And of course Origen is not his birth name, but a pen name.

The legends about his life are likely utterly fictitious, much like the travels of Paul and of Peter. Legend pure and simple. By reading Eusubius you mix gossip and dubious timelines to create an alternate legend to explain the common legend.

I do not think you really have a handle on the system of Carpocrates anyway, and you are trying to equate him (as if such a person even existed) with the bookworm Origen: quite a stretch for a celibate who does not believe in the transmigration of souls from body to body (per Contra Celsus) to be somebody who believes that and likes to have sex parties.

Anyway, Stephen it's a flat out lie to say I rely on the church fathers for the Origen commentary; Egyptian myths have nothing to do with them, nor did I consult them for this. If you look at my posts and work, most of it comes directly from NT texts and compared against competing NT texts. I very much downgrade the church fathers, noting they are heavily interpolated, often 3 or 4 hands present from a century or more later in some cases, and always dated early (often on the word of Eusubius "the dubious"). But when I look at your stuff it is a dump of some church father source and then taken as an unassailable source (although you love to confuse things by referring to different names as the authors for works under some other name --- you do that shits and giggles as we both know they are pseudonymous for the most part). I frankly think you are projecting your own approach on me.

We are dealing with legend. Almost all the Christian church father names are fake, and Origen was probably a derogatory name, Adamantios perhaps his Christian name, much like Irenaeus (Peaceful). But this is all legend.

[Secret Alias]

Actually it is you who rely much more heavily upon the church fathers.

I would hope that any discussion or reconstruction of early Christianity would be dependent on surviving source material. In that way we are both dependent on written source material. There are going to be differences with respect to HOW we approach the material. No one likes it when someone else characterizes or 'reframes' HOW they approach an issue when in the end that reframing is basically used to make framer look better, more intelligent, more thoughtful etc. So I will avoid attempting to define what I see as short-comings in your approach.

I will simply say that OF COURSE early Christians were engaged in castration practices and it is not at all strange to hear that Origen was one of these eunuchs. It would seem far stranger to me to see all the early sources accept Origen's dickless state and you - 'Stuart' from the 21st century - manage to know more than the Origenists.

You read the 4th and 5th century gossip as if it were fact.

It's not gossip. In fact it is a natural by product of Christian dislike or hatred of sex.

You are especially fond of Eusubius.

I am not fond of either Eusubius or Eusebius. But if I were to find another member of a cultic community admitting something embarrassing about said community I would have little difficulty accepting that testimony. We are not dealing with a 'true/not true' dichotomy but 'likely/less likely.' It is very likely that most prominent Christians - Christians that weren't married - were castrated IMHO. Find me an unmarried Christian from the first four hundred years and my guess is that person was castrated.

I however consider him for the most part providing an inconsistent and inaccurate history, as well as implausible.

I mean Eusubius or Eusebius isn't a historian in the modern sense but he has good sources.

I put forward here a simple explanation about how the story of Origen's castration may be a play on the name Origen, to basically say he was "dickless" like his namesake's father - a joke we all get. And of course Origen is not his birth name, but a pen name.

I am not sure what kind of a name Origen is but why would a Christian adopt a name built around a pagan god?

The legends about his life are likely utterly fictitious, much like the travels of Paul and of Peter.

No that seems highly unlikely to me. Bad comparison. Julius Cassian was likely castrated. The Alexandrian Church was associated with ritual castration since Justin's time. There are circumstantial arguments which argue on behalf of the testimony of various Church Fathers. Eusebius does not 'promote' the idea of Origen's mutilation but rather struggles to deal with an already well known situation.

Legend pure and simple. By reading Eusubius you mix gossip and dubious timelines to create an alternate legend to explain the common legend.

But it's the best we have. To ignore 'Eusubius' is to choose modern inventions. Always stick with the ancient sources over the modern reconstructions the exception being if they are contradicted by other ancient evidence.

I do not think you really have a handle on the system of Carpocrates anyway,

There does not seem to be a 'system' of the Carpocratians. It's most likely one of the least attested sects in early Christianity. First of all the name is a corruption of the original 'Harpocratians of Salome' preserved in Celsus's source. The name becomes conflated with the name which appears alongside it in Celsus's list - the followers of Marcellina from Hegesippus. Since Hegesippus does not mention the Carpocratians or Marcellina's association with the sect it wasn't likely a part of his original testimony and since Celsus doesn't cite it as such the corruption (i.e. the fusing of 'the followers of Marcellina' and 'the Harpocratians of Salome') took place late in the second century.

True Clement does mention them. But why is the name still in the corrupted form? My assumption with respect to Clement's citation of 'heretical groups' found in Irenaeus is that he had in his possession Irenaeus's original anti-heretical works (something which I see intimated in the Philosophumena). Knowing that this categorization of heretics existed he adopted its nomenclature to show that he was outwardly 'orthodox.' But the likelihood was that he knew - given his erudition - that this list of names was basically worthless. We see the same thing happening in the Medieval period.

My guess is that his false equation of Epiphanes as a Carpocratian was deliberate - not accidental. Doesn't Origen himself cast doubt there were ever any Carpocratians?

and you are trying to equate him (as if such a person even existed) with the bookworm Origen: quite a stretch for a celibate who does not believe in the transmigration of souls from body to body (per Contra Celsus) to be somebody who believes that and likes to have sex parties.

But Clement's identification of Epiphanes as a Carpocratian is interesting because it dovetails with the unnamed group in Quis Dives Salvatur both of whom argue for ritualized Platonic communism. Moreover if you throw in the Letter to Theodore it would seem as if the Carpocratians were (a) Christian Platonists who (b) argued for communism based on (c) an already established interpretation of Mark chapter 10. This emphasis on Mark chapter 10 is interesting because Origen goes so far as to cite non-canonical versions of this section (viz. the Gospel according to the Hebrews in what is now called the Commentary on Matthew) - Origen's understanding of the material is very much in line with the Carpocratians.

For some reason that is difficult to understand right now Clement's interpretation of this material does seem to have some reactionary qualities. Of course Mark chapter 10 and the story of the rich man necessarily leads to the idea of sharing of property in common. The material - in its present canonical form - does seem to argue against the existence of private property in the Christian community. This is not as true mind you in the Secret Gospel of Mark. The rich youth dies and is resurrected and still seems to retain possession of his 'house' where Jesus initiates him into the mystery of the kingdom of God.

If Clement and Origen (who oddly enough never mention one another by name and yet are said to have had a teacher/student relationship) represent opposite sides on the issue of private vs public property it is curious that when Origen's master Ambrose dies one of the harshest criticism of Ambrose is that he didn't leave Origen any money. Odd that this controversy over again whether Ambrose's money was his own or belonged to his 'brothers' should manifest itself in the surviving literature.

[Secret Alias]

Again, Church Fathers would prefer (like modern distraction experts) to speak in terms of sex and licentious activities but I say follow the money. The dichotomy between Clement's unprecedented affirmation of private property is sharply juxtaposed against his alleged pupil Origen's communism viz. https://books.google.com/books?id=iByBD ... 22&f=false. That Clement speaks in terms of 'Carpocratians' is odd at first. But we can see with respect to Epiphanes that he uses the term to denote all who would use Plato to argue for a renunciation of private property once members joined the community. Why would Origen argue for this? He plainly had no money of his own. Why would Clement argue the other way? He plainly considered things he gave up when he fled Alexandria to still belong to him. In other words, as is the case with many who flee persecution (in modern terms whether in Cuba or in my own family's case, Germany) the question of whether they renounced their property rites once they fled has come up and Clement and Origen stood apparently on opposite sides of this issue. I would imagine that Clement still believed that he had a right to determine orthodoxy in Alexandria while he was not physically 'there' because he likely owned buildings or meeting places associated with the community. That's my guess. Notice that he speaks of the Church of Mark in Alexandria as a place far away from him in the Letter to Theodore.

And with respect to the communist ideals of the so-called Carpocratians it is well known that Origen's interpretation of the contentious material in Mark 10 is identical with those (viz. the Carpocratians) whom Clement opposed in his writings - "But in Origen's commentary on Matthew his interpretation of the call to sell all reads like a deliberate refutation of the allegorical exegesis proposed by his predecessor Clement. He denies that the call should be allegorized, on the grounds that historical examples prove it is possible to take it literally: complete renunciation of property was practiced by pagan philosophers like Crates, and also by the first Christians described in Acts. Origen assumes therefore a very radical reading of Luke's panta koina, such as we do not find at all in earlier commentators, and would have greatly surprised Luke; and he connects this passage with the call to sell all, also taken in a very radical sense and assumed to have a general and continuing relevance for all Christians, which is never assumed in earlier comments. Furthermore, Origen put this ideal into practice by leading what Christians then called the “philosophical life,” or one of celibacy and extreme poverty: 'he felt that he must keep the gospel sayings of the Saviour urging us not to carry two coats or wear shoes and never to be worried by anxiety about the future” (Eusebius, History of the Church 6.3.9)" https://books.google.com/books?id=FnXmC ... 22&f=false it is clear that these 'Carpocratian' ideas were explicitly referenced in Origen's contemporaries - https://books.google.com/books?id=FnXmC ... in&f=false.

So in short, I think the sexualized nature of the Carpocratians is not only a myth but a deliberate distraction from the original communism associated with the group (i.e. as an outgrowth of the Platonic interest in the Republic of 'sharing wives/women in common'). At bottom the dispute between Clement and his opponents in Alexandria (the Carpocratians) came down to something basic - viz. money and property. The controversy was rooted in the 'otherworldly' nature of their mystic doctrine. If two men became united as one man, or perhaps if the community were all brothers, wasn't the property that one man had now the property of his true family? Again that Origen - who had no claim to a blood relationship with his patron thought he deserved to inherit his property not only speaks to the mystical rites at the heart of the community (which bound the pair like David and Jonathan) but also the rampant communism in the community. I would even go so far as to say that Eusebius's reworking of Origenist treatises to make Origen a dutiful 'slave' to Ambrose 'the taskmaster' was deliberate and that Ambrose was the historical Clement. The struggle between the two men had everything to do with money