Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12137
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 28, 2020 12:26 pm

Tertullian Apology 39:
But the working of that kind of love most of all brands us with a mark of blame in the eyes of some. 'See,' they say, 'how they love one another'; for they themselves hate one another; 'and how they are ready to die for one another'; for they will be more ready to kill one another. But also they rage at us for calling one another brethren, for no other reason, I suppose, than because among themselves every name indicating blood relationship is assumed from affection. But we are also your brothers, by right of nature, the one mother, although you are little deserving of the name men, because you are evil brothers. But how much more worthily are those both called and considered brethren who have recognised one Father, namely God, who have imbibed one spirit of holiness, who from one womb of the same ignorance have quaked before one light of truth! But we are perhaps regarded as less legitimate for the reason that no tragedy proclaims aloud our brotherliness, or because we are brothers as the result of household possessions, which among you generally break up the relationship of brothers. And so we, who are united in heart and soul, have no hesitation about sharing a thing. Among us all things are common except wives. In this matter alone we dissolve partnership, in which alone all other men practise partnership, who not only use the wives of friends, but also most patiently supply their own to their friends, in accordance, I believe, with the well-known teaching of ancient sages and philosophers, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared their wives with friends, those wives whom they had married, perhaps with their consent, to bear children in other households also. For what care could they have for chastity, which their husbands had given away so lightly! What an example of Athenian philosophy, of Roman seriousness! A philosopher and a censor both acting the part of procurers!
The reference to wives being held in common is also found in Clement's description of the Carpocratians:
But the followers of Carpocrates and Epiphanes think that wives should be common property. [Stromata 3.2]
This comes from the Platonist roots of the tradition because of what is said in the Republic:
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." If Plato himself and the Pythagoreans, as indeed later also followers of Marcion, regard birth as something evil (though the last named was far from thinking that wives were to be held in common), yet by the Marcionites nature is regarded as evil because it was created out of evil matter and by a just Creator. On this ground, that they do not wish to fill the world made by the Creator-God, they decide to abstain from marriage.
It is taken to absurdity by the made up account of Epiphanius:
But I shall get right down to the worst part of the deadly description of them—for they vary in their wicked teaching of what they please—which is, fi rst of all, that they hold their wives in common.20 (2) And if a guest who is of their persuasion arrives, they have a sign that men give women and women give men, a tickling of the palm as they clasp hands in supposed greeting, to show that the visitor is of their religion. 4,3 And once they recognize each other from this they start feasting right away—and they set the table with lavish provisions for eating meat and drinking wine even if they are poor. But then, after a drinking bout and, let us say, stuffi ng their overstuffed veins,21 they get hot for each other next. (4) And the husband will move away from his wife and tell her—speaking to his own wife!—“Get up, perform the Agape22 with the brother.” And when the wretched couple has made love—and I am truly ashamed to mention the vile things they do, for as the holy apostle says, “It is a shame even to speak” of what goes on among them. Still, I should not be ashamed to say what they are not ashamed to do, to arouse horror by every means in those who hear what obscenities they are prepared to perform. (5) For after having made love with the passion of fornication in addition, to lift their blasphemy up to heaven, the woman and man receive the man’s emission on their own hands. And they stand with their eyes raised heavenward but the fi lth on their hands and pray, if you please—(6) the ones they call Stratiotics and Gnostics—and offer that stuff on their hands to the true Father of all,23 and say, “We offer thee this gift, the body of Christ.” (7) And then they eat it24 partaking of their own dirt, and say, “This is the body of Christ; and this is the Pascha, because of which our bodies suffer and are compelled to acknowledge the passion of Christ.” 4,8 And so with the woman’s emission when she happens to be having her period—they likewise take the unclean menstrual blood they gather from her, and eat it in common. And “This,” they say, “is the blood of Christ.” (5,1) And so, when they read, “I saw a tree bearing twelve manner of fruits every year, and he said unto me, “This is the tree of life,” in apocryphal writings,25 they interpret this allegorically of the menstrual fl ux. 5,2 But although they have sex with each other they renounce procreation.26 It is for enjoyment, not procreation, that they eagerly pursue seduction, since the devil is mocking people like these, and making fun of the creature fashioned by God. (3) They come to climax but absorb the seeds of their dirt, not by implanting them for procreation, but by eating the dirty stuff themselves. 5,4 But even though one of them should accidentally implant the seed of his natural emission prematurely and the woman becomes pregnant, listen to a more dreadful thing that such people venture to do. (5) They extract the fetus at the stage which is appropriate for their enterprise, take this aborted infant, and cut it up in a trough with a pestle. And they mix honey, pepper, and certain other perfumes and spices with it to keep from getting sick, and then all the revellers in this < herd > of swine and dogs assemble, and each eats a piece of the child with his fi ngers.27 (6) And now, after this cannibalism, they pray to God and say, “We were not mocked by the archon of lust, but have gathered the brother’s blunder up!” And this, if you please, is their idea of the “perfect Passover.”
“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

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 28, 2020 3:44 pm

Ken Olson wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 11:07 am
Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 7:59 pm
Lawlor makes the case that Epiphanius had Hegesippus in front of him and cites from it throughout the Panarion. It might mean that things that go beyond what Irenaeus says about the Carpocratians is found by Epiphanius in Hegesippus.
I acknowledged in my earlier post that Lawlor had suggested that Epiphanius may have had Hegesippus in addition to Irenaeus as a source for his information on the Carpocratians, but pointed out that we have no way of knowing whether the specific claim about Carpocratian homosexuality came from Hegesippus. Now that I look at it, though, it appears that Lawlor's case may be based primarily on a translation error. The cornerstone of his argument concerns the woman Marcellina. Lawlor, following Lightfoot, renders the beginning of the passage:
A certain Marcellina who had been led into error by them (the Carpocratians) paid us a visit some time ago.
Lawlor reasons that the use of the first person suggests that Epiphanius is not using Irenaeus, but Irenaeus's source, which was someone living in Rome at the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, and this can only have been Hegesippus. Lawlor hypothesizes that Epiphanius retained the first person from the original, while Irenaeus modified it. (Lawlor, Eusebiana, 74).

However, Frank Williams' more recent translation of the same passage renders it:
I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them (Epiphanius Panarion 27.6.1).
The Greek is:
Ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα
I think the difference is due to Lawlor/Lightfoot taking Ἦλθεν to mean "she came", meaning Marcellina, while Williams takes it to mean "it came" meaning a tradition about Marcellina.
This is possible. Several items give me pause, however.

First, I have tried to find examples in Epiphanius close to your proposed interpretation of this line, and have come up with the following:

Epiphanius, Panarion 28.6.4-5a: 4 For their school reached its height in this country, I mean Asia, and in Galatia as well. And in these countries I also heard of a tradition [ἐν οἷς καί τι παραδόσεως πρᾶγμα ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς] which said that when some of their people died too soon, without baptism, others would be baptized for them in their names, so that they would not be punished for rising unbaptized at the resurrection and become the subjects of the authority that made the world. 5a And the tradition I heard of says that this is why [καὶ τούτου ἕνεκα ἡ παράδοσις ἡ ἐλθοῦσα εἰς ἡμᾶς φησι] the same holy apostle said, "If the dead rise not at all, why are they baptized for them?"

Epiphanius, Panarion 28.8.1: 1 But they are called Merinthians too, I am told [ὡς ἡ ἐλθοῦσα εἰς ἡμᾶς φάσις περιέχει]. Whether the same Cerinthus was also called Merinthus I have no idea; or whether there was someone else named Merinthus, a colleague of his, God knows!

Epiphanius, Panarion 38.2.4: 4 Further, I have now learned of a book [ἤδη δὲ ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ βιβλίον] in which they have forged certain assertions which are full of wickedness, containing such things as, "This is the angel who blinded Moses. These are the angels who hid the companions of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and removed them elsewhere."

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.2.8: 8 And as far as I know [ὡς ἡ ἐλθοῦσα εἰς ἡμᾶς γνῶσις περιέχει], he first lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim — also called Ashtaroth — in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching — the place, if you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from.

(The English is from the Williams translation; you can see, based on the Greek, how loose his translation is: a looseness I have had numerous occasions in the past to reflect upon.)

It is evident that Epiphanius is perfectly capable of referring to himself in the plural as the recipient of information or tradition; and there are other (less relevant, to my eye) examples across the Panarion of him doing so. But in the above cases he expresses the subject in full (παραδόσεως πρᾶγμα, παράδοσις, φάσις, βιβλίον, γνῶσις); he does not leave it to an unexpressed "it." This is not a huge deal on its own, but take it in conjunction with the rest.

Second, if we take the subject of ἦλθεν to be an unexpressed "it," then we have to take πως as introducing indirect discourse in order to explain the nominative Μαρκελλίνα (and then I think we probably also ought to render it as πῶς, with the accent, rather than as the enclitic, as the Greek edition seems to do). Yet ἤδη πως is a rather common Greek expression on its own merits, and it is unfortunate that these two words, completely unrelated to one another on a syntactic level in your reading, should have ended up sitting side by side, seemingly forming a common expression and making perfect grammatical sense in that capacity. Again, not a huge deal, but something to consider.

Third, there is an evident relationship, whether direct or indirect, between Irenaeus and Epiphanius at this point of the text:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6a: 6a Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray [unde et Marcellina, quae Romam sub Aniceto venit, cum esset huius doctrinae, multos exterminavit]. They style themselves Gnostics.

Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.9-27.6.1: 5.9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right earlobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron, or by using a razor or needle. 6.1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them [ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα; alternately, "and there came to us some time ago a certain Marcellina, who was deceived by them"], who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome [ἣ πολλοὺς ἐλυμήνατο ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης], the successor of Pius and the bishops before him.

Epiphanius obviously knew Irenaeus, so no problem so far. The issue is that, where Irenaeus has Romam sub Aniceto venit, Epiphanius has words which could easily be viewed as representing much of the Greek behind the Latin translation of Irenaeus: ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς... ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου. I know the word order is different, but, much like the second point above, it is something to be noticed, in my opinion, that ἦλθεν, the most obvious Greek word one would use to translate venit (or vice versa), should find a place in Epiphanius' text, seemingly by accident, as part of a completely different construction. But obviously the "us" did not come from Irenaeus, and this is where Lawlor's hypothesis comes in.

Fourth, we know from Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.2-3, that Hegesippus was in Rome until the time of Anicetus. (I take the next two sentences, from "his deacon was Eleutherus" to "the law and the prophets and the Lord" to fall outside of the quotation; Eusebius is filling out the list from, you guessed it, Irenaeus.) So already Marcellina coming to "us" in the time of Anicetus would make sense if Hegesippus is the source. But there is more. Irenaeus' list of the bishops of Rome (Against Heresies 3.3.3), a list extending up through Eleutherius, bears two syntactical breaks. The first is at Clement, evidently in order to introduce all the personal information about him. The second is at Anicetus, for no reason obvious from the list itself (since no extraneous information is given for him): the members of the list after Clement and up to Anicetus are all in the nominative case as subjects of the verbs διαδέχεται and καθίσταται. However, after Anicetus, Soter is in the genitive case as part of a genitive absolute, while Eleutherus is back in the nominative case as the subject of the verb κατέχει. At the same time, the list given in Epiphanius ends with Anicetus:

Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.9-27.6.1-3, 7-8: 5.9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right earlobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron, or by using a razor or needle. 6.1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them [ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα], who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome [ἣ πολλοὺς ἐλυμήνατο ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης], the successor of Pius and the bishops before him. 2 For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops — then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. 3 And no one need wonder why others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul — for he too is the apostles' contemporary. .... 7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. 8 In Anicetus' time, then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so called Gnostics [ἀρχὴ Γνωστικῶν τῶν καλουμένων].


Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3, English
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3, Latin
Eusebius, History of the Church 5.5.8-5.6.5, English
Eusebius, History of the Church 5.5.8-5.6.5, Greek
--5.8 Pothinus having died with the other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age, Irenæus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church at Lyons. We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp. 9 In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work. He writes as follows:Ποθεινοῦ δὴ ἐφ' ὅλοις ζωῆς ἔτεσιν ἐνενήκοντα σὺν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασιν τελειωθέντος, Εἰρηναῖος τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον ἧς ὁ Ποθεινὸς ἡγεῖτο παροικίας τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν διαδέχεται· Πολυκάρπου δὲ τοῦτον ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν νέαν ἐμανθάνομεν ἡλικίαν. τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὴν διαδοχὴν ἐπισκόπων ἐν τρίτῃ συντάξει τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις παραθέμενος, εἰς Ἐλεύθερον, οὗ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἡμῖν ἐξετάζεται, ὡς ἂν δὴ κατ' αὐτὸν σπουδαζομένης αὐτῷ τῆς γραφῆς, τὸν κατάλογον ἵστησι, γράφων ὧδε·
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.Fundantes igitur et instruentes beati apostoli ecclesiam, Lino episcopatum administradae ecclesiae tradiderunt. huius Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum epistolis meminit. succedit autem ei Anacletus; post eum tertio loco ab apostolis episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui et vidit ipsos apostolos, et contulit cum eis, et cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem apostolorum et traditionem ante oculos haberet, non solus, adhuc enim multi supererant tunc ab apostolis docti.6.1 The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 2 Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived. 3 In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles.»θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν· τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται. διαδέχεται δ' αὐτὸν Ἀνέγκλητος, μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης, ὁ καὶ ἑορακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ἀποστόλους καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔτι ἔναυλον τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων, οὐ μόνος· ἔτι γὰρ πολλοὶ ὑπελείποντο τότε ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων δεδιδαγμένοι. ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος στάσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθῳ γενομένης ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοις, εἰς εἰρήνην συμβιβάζουσα αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνανεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει».
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.Sub hoc igitur Clemente, dissensione non modica inter eos qui Corinthi essent fratres facta, scripsit quae est Romae ecclesia potentissimas literas Corinthiis, ad pacem eos congregans et reparans fidem eorum, et annuntians quam in recenti ab apostolis acceperat traditionem,* annuntiantem unum deum omnipotentam, factorem coeli et terrae, plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Aegypti, qui collucutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et prophetas miserit, qui ignem praeparaverit diabolo et angelis eius. hunc patrem domini nostri Iesu Christi ab ecclesiis annuntiari, ex ipsa scriptura, qui velint discere possunt, et apostolicam ecclesiae traditionem intelligere, cum sit vetustior epistola his qui nunc falso docent, et alterum deum super dimiurgum et factorem horum omnium quae sunt commentiuntur.4 A little farther on he says:καὶ μετὰ βραχέα φησίν·
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.Huic autem Clementi succedit Evaristus, et Evaristo Alexander, ac deinceps sextus ab apostolis constitutus est Sixtus, et ab hoc Telesphorus, qui etiam gloriosissime martyrium fecit; ac deinceps Hyginus, post Pius, post quem Anicetus. cum autem successisset Aniceto Soter, nunc duodecimo loco episcopatum ab apostolis habet Eleutherius. hac ordinatione et successione ea quae est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae en ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate.Evarestus succeeded Clement, and Alexander, Evarestus. Then Xystus, the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After him Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then Hyginus; then Pius; and after him Anicetus; Soter succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus holds the office of bishop. 5 In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us.»τὸν δὲ Κλήμεντα τοῦτον διαδέχεται Εὐάρεστος καὶ τὸν Εὐάρεστον Ἀλέξανδρος, εἶθ' οὕτως ἕκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καθίσταται Ξύστος, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Τελεσφόρος, ὃς καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησεν· ἔπειτα Ὑγῖνος, εἶτα Πίος, μεθ' ὃν Ἀνίκητος. διαδεξαμένου τὸν Ἀνίκητον Σωτῆρος, νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος. τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἥ τε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς».

Now perhaps he got the fuller list from Irenaeus (or from Eusebius, for that matter) and stopped at Anicetus because he is talking about a woman from that time.

But what are we to make of the syntactic break in Irenaeus, then? My approach is not that every syntactic break requires an explanation, but rather that a syntactic break in this case, at Anicetus in particular, when Anicetus is already making his presence known in intriguing ways in these texts, merits a closer look. I think that Lawlor may be right that Irenaeus was working from an existing list of Roman bishops, one which ran up through Anicetus, but he updated it to his own time by adding Soter and Eleutherus. If this is the case, then it seems possible that Epiphanius, too, was working from that same source, which would explain why he has "us" where Irenaeus has "Rome," and of course his list would stop at Anicetus, too, just like his source's did. (As for why Epiphanius would copy this first person plural over from his source, well, I think that Epiphanius was just a very clumsy author/editor; there are examples of his clumsiness in other parts of his work, and I think I have seen worse.) This interpretation also allows ἦλθεν to be followed by its natural subject, Μαρκελλίνα, much as in some of the examples I gave above, and it allows ἤδη πως to stand together as a distinct phrase, exactly as it appears to do (to my eye, at any rate, and I think to that of the editors of the Greek, if the accentuation in the TLG is to be trusted).

You also wrote:
Williams translation is preferable as it does not multiply hypotheses about an original source using the first person....
I guess I view this as a complete nonobjection. There is no multiplication of sources here; this is the possible identification of a source with one already (and independently) known to exist. That Epiphanius was working from a source should be obvious and noncontroversial. Irenaeus should be our first suspect; but I think that Lawlor makes a really good case for Hegesippus, instead.

One more observation (from Lawlor):

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6a: 6a Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray [unde et Marcellina, quae Romam sub Aniceto venit, cum esset huius doctrinae, multos exterminavit]. They style themselves Gnostics.

Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.9-27.6.1-3, 7-8: 5.9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right earlobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron, or by using a razor or needle. 6.1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them [ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα], who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome [ἣ πολλοὺς ἐλυμήνατο ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης], the successor of Pius and the bishops before him. 2 For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops — then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. 3 And no one need wonder why others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul — for he too is the apostles' contemporary. .... 7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. 8 In Anicetus' time, then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so called Gnostics [ἀρχὴ Γνωστικῶν τῶν καλουμένων].

If Epiphanius' source is Irenaeus, then what gave him the idea that the Carpocratians were the beginning of the Gnostics? Irenaeus (at least in his Latin translation) says less than that. I would suggest that Epiphanius has merely overinterpreted Irenaeus, except that Eusebius says something similar:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.7.9a: 9a Irenaeus also writes that Carpocrates was a contemporary of these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the heresy of the Gnostics [ἑτέρας αἱρέσεως τῆς τῶν Γνωστικῶν ἐπικληθείσης πατέρα], who did not wish to transmit any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one had done, in secret, but openly.

Okay, but we know that Epiphanius knew and used Eusebius, right? So he could be using both Irenaeus and Eusebius as sources for his treatment of the Carpocratians. Or, perhaps, as Lawlor suggests, he is really using only one source, and that source had something about the Carpocratians (or Marcellina on their behalf) spawning the Gnostics. In that case, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius would, all three, be using this original source, and we would actually be reducing Epiphanius' necessary sources for Carpocrates from two (Irenaeus and Eusebius) down to one (Hegesippus). Speculative, I know, but worth considering.

At any rate, the conjunction of "us" in the time of Anicetus, Epiphanius' list which ends at Anicetus, and the syntactic break at Anicetus in the list provided by Irenaeus is interesting, at least to my eye.

(I may or may not respond much to anything you might have to say in reply here; I am very busy elsewhere, and this post has already drained too much of my time. But I promise I will read it with an open mind, regardless. I am more interested in the kind of textual analysis Lawlor does than in whether he is correct overall or not.)
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu May 28, 2020 7:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12137
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 28, 2020 4:05 pm

Exemplary work Ben
“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

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 28, 2020 4:28 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 4:05 pm
Exemplary work Ben
You say that now, but next time I disagree with you it will all be just so much garbage, right? ;)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12137
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 28, 2020 5:04 pm

It depends what mood I'm in. And I don't know if you are really agreeing with me. You're hinting Lawlor might be right. It has little to do with me. I've seen you take an interest in Lawlor irrespective of me or my nonsense.
“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

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 28, 2020 5:15 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 5:04 pm
It depends what mood I'm in. And I don't know if you are really agreeing with me. You're hinting Lawlor might be right. It has little to do with me. I've seen you take an interest in Lawlor irrespective of me or my nonsense.
Okay, then, just mentally rephrase me disagreeing with you with me disagreeing with the position that you espouse. :)

But yes: I do rather like that book by Lawlor.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12137
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 28, 2020 5:19 pm

Will do.
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12137
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 28, 2020 8:57 pm

“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

Ken Olson
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson » Sat May 30, 2020 2:29 pm

I wrote about Clement's Exhortation to the Hellenes 12:
It looks like Clement is describing Christian baptism in the language of the mystery cults.
And Robert J. replied:
I think characterizing this passage as referring to the Christian ritual of baptism is way too narrow.
It may not be detailed, but I think it's largely accurate. I'll give evidence for that below.

And:
The Greek term epoptai (ἐπόπται) is typically translated in bibles as "eyewitnesses". But in an historical context, the word was used primarily as a technical term in the non-Christian Eleusinian Mysteries, widespread in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. The term was used to designate advanced initiates who had attained esoteric knowledge.
That's interesting. Could you cite primary sources for that (i.e., the use of ἐπόπται)?

I'm beginning with the assumption that the primary context in which to understand Clement's language in a particular case is how Clement himself uses the same language elsewhere. Clement's passage, which I take to be about baptism, again:
O truly sacred mysteries! O pure light! In the blaze of the torches I have a vision from heaven and of God. I become holy by initiation. The Lord reveals the mysteries ; He marks the worshipper with his seal, gives light to guide his way, and commends him, when he has believed, to the Father's care, where he is guarded for ages to come. These are the revels of the mysteries! ...

O ye who of old were images, but do not at all resemble your model, I desire to conform you to the archetype, that you may become even as I am. I will anoint you with the ointment of faith, whereby you cast away corruption ; and I will display unveiled [γυμνὸν] the figure of righteousness, whereby you ascend to God. Come unto me. [Exhortation to the Hellenes 12; Butterworth's Loeb translation].
First, notice the place given to the Lord's seal, after which the initiate is given to the Father's care. This seal is likely to be the baptismal seal from QDS 39:
For if you understand who is the rich man that has
no place in heaven, and also in what manner a man
may so use his substance (39) as to win his way
to life through the censure and difficulties caused
by wealth, and to be able to enjoy the eternal good
things,—yes, even though he has happened either
because of ignorance or of weakness or of circum-
stances not of his own choice to fall after the
baptismal seal and redemption into certain sins or
transgressions so as to have become completely sub-
ject to them,—let not this thought remain with you
to lead to despair and despondency, namely, that
such an one has been condemned outright by God (QDS 39)
This connection of the seal with baptism is perhaps even clearer in QDS 42, in which the apostle John gives the youth into the care of the presbyter.
the presbyter took home the youth who had
been handed over to him, and brought him up, made
a companion of him, cherished him, and finally
enlightened him by baptism. After this he relaxed
his special care and guardianship, thinking that he
had set over him the perfect guard, the seal of the
Lord
. (QDS 42).
In this case, the seal is specified to be the Lord's seal, and that the perfect guard into which the presbyter gave the youth is almost certainly the Father's care mentioned in Exhortation 12.

I think this is enough evidence to justify the conclusion that the mysteries Clement refers to in Exhortation 12 are baptism, or at least include baptism. One could, theoretically, contest whether Clement is consistently referring to baptism throughout the chapter, but the words “I will anoint you” sound like baptism as well. This means that the accompanying concept, casting away corruption to display the naked figure of righteousness, is something that occurs as a result of baptism. The language of casting away corruption is also found in Exhortation 10 where the image used is snakes casting off their old skin, rather than their clothing.

This concept of baptism is already found in the Pauline corpus. I have previously pointed out that the image of baptism as is found in Colossians 3.5-10:
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. 7 These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. 8 But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices 10 and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.
The well known passage about baptism in Romans 6.1-14 also states that the old self dies in baptism and the self is freed from sin (v. 7-8; cf. Gal. 2.19-21). As we have good reason to suppose that the image of casting way corruption to reveal the naked figure of righteousness refers to baptism in Clement's Exhortation to the Hellenes, and this is in keeping with the concept of baptism as represented in the Pauline corpus, it follows that similar imagery used elsewhere in Clement's work can be understood as referring to baptism as well.

Two uses of this metaphor of nakedness to represent the self or soul after the removal of corruption or sin or passions can be sound in Clement's exegesis of Mark 10:
The presence of wealth in these is deadly to all, the loss of it salutary. Of which, making the soul pure — that is, poor and bare (γυμνήν) — we must hear the Saviour speaking thus, Come, follow Me [Mark 10.21] (QDS 16)
namely to strip the soul itself and the will of their lurking passions and utterly to root out and cast away all alien thoughts from the mind. For this is a lesson peculiar to the believer and a doctrine worthy of the Saviour. (QDS 12)
The metaphor of nakedness in both these cases can easily be understood as a reference to the well known ritual of baptism, in which the new self is disencumbered from its existing sins.

To be clear, Clement makes it explicit at the end of chapter 15 and the beginning of 16 that it is not physical wealth that is dangerous but the passion for wealth:
In this way then the Lord admits the use of outward things, bidding us put away, not the means of living, but the things that use these badly ; and these are, as we have seen, the infirmities and passions of the soul. Wealth of these brings death whenever it is present, but salvation when it is destroyed. (QDS 15-16).
To paraphrase Clement, physical riches, or “the means of living”, does not itself endanger one's hope for salvation, as riches may be used properly. It is “the things that use these badly”, defined as the infirmities and passions of the soul, that endanger one's salvations and need to be destroyed or stripped away.

Clement goes on to argue later in the book that these infirmities and passions of the soul, even if they show up after baptism, are not necessarily fatal to salvation, provided they are expunged:
Of sins already committed , then God gives remission, but of those that are to come each man procures his own remission. And this is repentance, to condemn the deeds that are past and to ask forgetfulness from the Father, who alone of all is able to make undone what has been done, by wiping out the former sins with the mercy that comes from Him and with the dew of the Spirit. (QDS 40).
The “dew of the Spirit” is again a reference to baptism, which accomplishes the remission of sins already committed. Clement goes on to allow that:
it is perhaps impossible all at once to cut away the passions that have grown with us, but with God's power, human supplication, the help of brethren, sincere repentance and constant practice success is achieved. (QDS 40).
This appears to be an admission that the passions are likely to return even after baptism, but that because of God's power (he is explicating “with God all things are possible”), the help of brethren, sincere repentance and constant practice, passions that occur after baptism may also be removed and salvation achieved.

The part about the help of brethren is particularly interesting, as Clement suggests in the subsequent chapter that the rich man “should appoint for yourself some man of God as trainer or pilot” (QDS 41), not only to advise him on proper practice but also to intercede with God on his behalf:
Let him spend many wakeful nights on your behalf, acting as your ambassador with God and moving the Father by the spell of constant supplications ; for He does not withstand His children when they beg His mercies. (QDS 41)
.

The example of the Apostle John in the concluding section, chapter 42, is meant to illustrate how this works.

But to return to the main point of this somewhat lengthy post: when Clement's uses of the word “naked” as a metaphor for the state of the soul when stripped of its sins or passions, he appears to be discussing what happens to the initiate as a result of baptism.
Last edited by Ken Olson on Sat May 30, 2020 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

robert j
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by robert j » Sat May 30, 2020 3:17 pm

Regarding my comment on 2 Peter ---
Ken Olson wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 2:29 pm
robert j wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:53 am

The Greek term epoptai (ἐπόπται) is typically translated in bibles as "eyewitnesses". But in an historical context, the word was used primarily as a technical term in the non-Christian Eleusinian Mysteries, widespread in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. The term was used to designate advanced initiates who had attained esoteric knowledge.
That's interesting. Could you cite primary sources for that (i.e., the use of ἐπόπται)?
Here are a couple of examples that have been previously posted on this forum ---

Ben provided this one ---
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue May 09, 2017 7:32 am
... In the version in 2 Peter, the visionaries are called ἐπόπται, which was used in two principal ways, I think. First, it was an epithet for a deity as an overseer; second, however, it was a term for an initiate into various mysteries, as we find, for example, in Plutarch:

Plutarch, Life of Alexander 7.5: 5 It would appear, moreover, that Alexander not only received from his master his ethical and political doctrines, but also participated in those secret and more profound teachings which philosophers designate by the special terms "acroamatic" and "epoptic" ( ἀκροατικὰς καὶ ἐποπτικὰς), and do not impart to many.

Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades 22.3: 3 His impeachment is on record, and runs as follows: "Thessalus, son of Cimon, of the deme Laciadae, impeaches Alcibiades, son of Cleinias, of the deme Scambonidae, for committing crime against the goddesses of Eleusis, Demeter and Cora, by mimicking the mysteries and showing them forth to his companions in his own house, wearing a robe such as the High Priest wears when he shows forth the sacred secrets to the initiates, and calling himself High Priest, Pulytion Torch-bearer, and Theodorus, of the deme Phegaea, Herald, and hailing the rest of his companions as Mystae [μύστας] and Epoptae [ἐπόπτας], contrary to the laws and institutions of the Eumolpidae, Heralds, and Priests of Eleusis."

And here's one I posted (with format changes here) ---
robert j wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:08 pm

... In Against the Valentinians, in Latin and attributed to Tertullian (chapter 1) ---

... The Valentinians, as everyone knows, are the most commonly encountered sect of heretics, most common because they are mostly apostates from the true religion, quite willing to invent myths (fabulas) ...

... In just the same way concerning the Eleusinian mysteries … make entry difficult and perform long initiation rites before they accept the devotee (epoptas) …

... These people make the Eleusinian rites into Valentinian lures, sacred only because of their great silence, heavenly only because of their concealment. (translation by Mark T. Riley, 1971)


Post Reply