Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-19-2011, 11:11 AM

Clement's text of 1 Corinthians 13 (the second part to the agape ritual) compared with the received text:

Quote:

Received text of 1 Cor 13:1:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal

Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον.

Clement's text of 1 Corinthians 13:1:

If I give my body, and have not love, I am sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal.

τὸ σῶμά μου ἐπιδῶ φησίν, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, χαλκός εἰμι ἠχῶν καὶ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Received text of 1 Corinthians 13:2:

And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity I am nothing

κἂν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν κἂν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάνειν, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι.

The received text of 13:3:

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and though I give my body to be burned and have not charity it profiteth me nothing

κἂν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα μου κἂν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμα μου ἵνα καυχήσωμαι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι.

Two examples of Clement's text of 1 Corinthians 13:2, 3:

And if I give all my goods in alms ... and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains and be not faithful to the Lord from love, I am nothing

κἂν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου, μὴ δι' ἀγάπην δὲ πιστωθῶ τῷ κυρίῳ, οὐθέν εἰμι

For they have not yet learned that God has provided for His creature (man I mean) food and drink, for sustenance, not for pleasure; since the body derives no advantage from extravagance in viands. For, quite the contrary, those who use the most frugal fare are the strongest and the healthiest, and the noblest; as domestics are healthier and stronger than their masters, and husbandmen than the proprietors; and not only more robust, but wiser, as philosophers are wiser than rich men. For they have not buried the mind beneath food, nor deceived it with pleasures. But love (agape) is in truth celestial food, the banquet of reason. "It beareth all things, endureth all things, hopeth all things. Love never faileth." "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." But the hardest of all cases is for charity, which faileth not, to be cast from heaven above to the ground into the midst of sauces. And do you imagine that I am thinking of a supper that is to be done away with? For if, I bestow all my goods, and have not love, I am nothing.

Ἐὰν γάρ, φησί, διαδῶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδέν εἰμι

... not were they to give their whole body. "For they have not love," according to the apostle. All the action, then, of a man possessed of knowledge is right action; and that done by a man not possessed of knowledge is: wrong action, though he observe a plan; since it is not from reflection that he acts bravely, nor does he direct his action in those things which proceed from virtue to virtue, to any useful purpose.

... οὐδ' ἂν τὸ σῶμα ἅπαν ἐπιδιδῶσιν· ἀγάπην γὰρ οὐκ ἔχουσι κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον τὴν διὰ τῆς γνώσεως γεννωμένην

Received text of 1 Corinthians 13.4, 5:

Love suffereth long and is kind love envieth not love vaunteth not itself is not puffed up

Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη, οὐ ζηλοῖ, οὐ περπερεύεται, οὐ φυσιοῦται,

Doth not behave itself unseemly seeketh not her own is not easily provoked thinketh no evil

οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ, οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς, οὐ παροξύνεται, οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν,

Clement's citations of the material:

There is, too, another beauty of men--love. "And love," according to the apostle, "suffers long, and is kind; envieth not; vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." For the decking of one's self out--carrying, as it does, the look of superfluity and uselessness--is vaunting one's self. Wherefore he adds, "doth not behave itself unseemly:" for a figure which is not one's own, and is against nature, is unseemly; but what is artificial is not one's own, as is clearly explained: "seeketh not," it is said, "what is not her own." For truth calls that its own which belongs to it; but the love of finery seeks what is not its own, being apart from God, and the Word, from love. And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies by Esaias: "And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness but His form was mean, inferior to men." Yet who was more admirable than the Lord? But it was not the beauty of the flesh visible to the eye, but the true beauty of both soul and body, which He exhibited, which in the former is beneficence; in the latter--that is, the flesh-immortality.

Ἀγάπη δέ, κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον, μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται, οὐ ζηλοῖ, οὐ περπερεύεται, οὐ φυσιοῦται ... Οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ. Ἄσχημον γὰρ τὸ ἀλλότριον καὶ μὴ κατὰ φύσιν (= homosexuality) σχῆμα. τὸ δ' ἐπίπλαστον ἀλλότριον, ὅπερ ἐξηγεῖται σαφῶς, οὐ ζητεῖ φήσας τὸ μὴ ἑαυτῆς·

I could keep going through the examples but I don't know if the reader has noticed we are actually back to the original reference. The only difference now is that we have - through the ritual of adelphopoiesis made it quite clear that even Clement associates both John 17 and especially 1 Corinthians 13 with the primitive ritual of agape where - most importantly - the desirability or beauty of Jesus is stressed over and over again. Clement also always goes out of his way to distinguish 'the bad agape' of the heretics (where clearly unseemliness has been reported) and the 'true agape' where presumably a sexless ritual of uniting with Jesus takes place.

This sounds suspiciously similar to the context of the Letter to Theodore don't you think?

archibald · 10-19-2011, 11:21 AM

Freud would surely have had a field day with early Christians. I mean, cutting off your own testicles. What sort of anaesthetic was available back then anyhow?

And regarding homosexual undertones.......

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ay-man-codices

Not that being gay is an issue, more the repressed homophobia maybe.

Or........think bisexuality...........or maybe just androgyny.

Neither male nor female, all one in Jesus, as Paul put it.

'The second concept has to be presented as a theory, though a plausible one: that Jesus was considered by followers as androgynous in a significant symbolic sense. A persuasive theory proposed nine years ago holds that an early baptism brought forth a new androgynous person in the initiated Christian believer, "neither male nor female." The idea, apparently inspired by first century Jewish speculation that Adam was originally male and female, goes on to suggest that the "last Adam," as Paul once referred to Jesus, provided the model for the new believer.'

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1667

stephan huller · 10-19-2011, 12:16 PM

I don't think anyone was gay to be honest. Look up aufheben in a German dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben

archibald · 10-19-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't think anyone was gay to be honest.

:constern02:

stephan huller · 10-19-2011, 03:59 PM

The question with respect to the plausibility of the Letter to Theodore is whether rites which 'seemed gay' existed, not whether the rituals themselves involved 'real' homosexuality. The modern equivalent would be:

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/s...ay_as_a_goose/

archibald · 10-20-2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The question with respect to the plausibility of the Letter to Theodore is whether rites which 'seemed gay' existed, not whether the rituals themselves involved 'real' homosexuality.

Fair enough, that may be the limit of your particular concern, in this thread. Though an exploration of whether they (the rituals) were 'gay' wouldn't have to stop there, nor would the question of whether anyone was gay.

stephan huller · 10-20-2011, 08:15 PM

That professor who wrote the academic article I cited a while back has this to say about the rite:

Quote:

I'm swamped at the moment and can't be much help. I'd have to look again at the Life of Rabbula, but I doubt that there is continuity in the rite (as such) over time from the early Byz. period to the middle Byz period. What shows up in monastic context seems to have a different character and significance from what is later essentially a laymen's compact. You might contact Claudia Rapp at the University of Vienna who is about to publish a big book on the making of brothers in Byzantium.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2011, 11:21 AM	#22
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Freud would surely have had a field day with early Christians. I mean, cutting off your own testicles. What sort of anaesthetic was available back then anyhow? And regarding homosexual undertones....... http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ay-man-codices Not that being gay is an issue, more the repressed homophobia maybe. Or........think bisexuality...........or maybe just androgyny. Neither male nor female, all one in Jesus, as Paul put it. 'The second concept has to be presented as a theory, though a plausible one: that Jesus was considered by followers as androgynous in a significant symbolic sense. A persuasive theory proposed nine years ago holds that an early baptism brought forth a new androgynous person in the initiated Christian believer, "neither male nor female." The idea, apparently inspired by first century Jewish speculation that Adam was originally male and female, goes on to suggest that the "last Adam," as Paul once referred to Jesus, provided the model for the new believer.' http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1667

10-19-2011, 12:16 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't think anyone was gay to be honest. Look up aufheben in a German dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben

10-19-2011, 03:59 PM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The question with respect to the plausibility of the Letter to Theodore is whether rites which 'seemed gay' existed, not whether the rituals themselves involved 'real' homosexuality. The modern equivalent would be: http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/s...ay_as_a_goose/

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.