FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-07-2011, 04:33 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

For those keeping track at home, the Peshitta (Syriac) version of Colossians 3:11 has NO references to Scythians:

Quote:
where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Greek nor barbarian, neither bond nor free; but the Messiah is all, and in all.
As noted earlier, the reference to the existence of 'Scythian' Christians makes no sense in 50 CE. The pattern of pairing 'Jews' with 'Gentiles' and 'Greeks' with 'barbarians' makes more sense and follows the other epistles. It is my contention Scythians is a later addition. The reference does appear in Clement of Alexandria however.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 03:16 AM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
The identification of the Marcionites as castrated semi-barbarians like the 'Scythians' must have been responsible for the entire 'Marcion of Pontus' epithet. Marcion was not from Pontus, nor was the movement literally 'Scythian.' My guess is that it has something to do with the marsh-dwellers of the Nile (= Boucolia) near Alexandria being castrated Christian followers of Marcion. What other explanation is there? That Marcion and the Marcionites were literally from Scythia and Pontus?
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Galatia is very important for Paul and that province is very close to Scythia and Pontus. The thiasoi associations of Theos Hypsistos were very important in Tanais in 1. and 2. century CE. Theos Hypsistos was equated with the God Most High of the Jews. Maybe there is some link with the first Christian communities of Paul in Galatia.
ph2ter is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 06:25 AM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
I had run across this name when I was doing work on the Acts of Archelaus. However I had no idea (or forgot) that he is supposed to have been alive at the time of the apostles. Here is the Wikipedia article. Any thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythianus
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
I am detecting a whiff of Damis the disciple of Appolonius of Tyana, who supposedly accompanied the latter to India and penned a travel diary describing Apollonius' wonderous deeds, which Philostratus claims to have used for his biography of the wandering sage.

The polemic of 3rd-4th century church fathers seems to be based primarily on rumors and innuendo.
This Acts of Archelaus is generally recognised as non historical and a fabrication of the 4th century heresiologists concerning the history of Mani and the Manichaeans. It makes reasonable sense therefore that the figure of Scythianus is a fabricated and twisted version of the historical Damis, who accompanied Apollonius (whose name is used in Codex Bezae instead of "Apollos") to India about that time.


Quote:
The 'Teachers' of Mani in the "Acta Archelai" and Simon Magus - Eszter Spät

Abstract

This paper aims to prove that the biography of Mani in the "Acta Archelae" of Hegemonius, which contains a great number of completely fictitious elements, was in fact drawn up on the file of Simon Magus, "pater omnium haereticorum," using the works of heresiologists and the apocryphal acts, especially the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitiones," as a model and source. There are a great number of elements in this "Vita Manis" that bear a strong resemblance to the well known motives of Simon's life. Projecting Simon's life over that of Mani serves as tool to reinforce the image of Mani that Hegemonius tried to convey: that of just another 'run of the mill' heretic, one in the long line of the disciples of Simon, and a fraud and devoid of any originality.
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 03:26 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I am not in agreement with Spat on either the date or location of the composition of the AA.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 03:51 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Interestingly I just saw that Iaian Gardiner (and a certain Timothy Pettipiece) identify the 'Scythian' here as Anacharsis the Scythian philosopher mentioned above. This because the name appears throughout the Kephalaia (= 'heads' or chapters). The point of course here is that this is a good turn of events for the idea that Marcion might have originally been compared or identified with Anacharsis. http://books.google.com/books?id=C_R...harsis&f=false

The question now is that if Anacharsis was originally identified by Mani himself as a precursor for his dualistic ideas perhaps there is some basis for the same comparison with Marcion in Tertullian. Now to find some proof that Anarchasis was in fact a dualist.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 04:12 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I think I found something which ties in all I have written with David Hindley's point about an interest in negating the law. This episode surviving in the fragments from the ninth book of Diodorus ( Vales. Excerpt S.23 ):

Quote:
Croesus sent for those men of Greece most renowned for their wisdom, and showing them the immense wealth of his treasuries, he bestowed rich gifts on those who praised his good fortune. And just he had summoned to him those whose wisdom was most celebrated he also sent for Solon, for he intended that the testimony of these men should confirm his great happiness. Thus Anacharsis the Scythian, and Bias and Solon and Pittaeus came to him and were all honoured and feasted together. He showed his riches and the greatness of his power to them also. At that time, however, men of learning were concise in their style of speech.

Now, when Croesus had shown these men the splendour of his realm and the great numbers of those who served him, he asked Anacharsis, the oldest among the wise men, which living being on earth he considered the bravest.

Anacharsis said: the wildest animals, for they alone died willingly for their freedom. Croesus thought that this was the wrong answer but believed that the answer to his second question would be according to his wish, and so he asked him whom he considered to be the most righteous. But Anacharsis answered again: the wildest animals, for they alone lived according to nature and not according to laws; and whereas nature was the work of God, the law was only the invention of man, and surely it was more just to abide by the work of God than by those of man. And now, wishing to get the better of Anacharsis, Croesus asked him whether he thought the wildest animals also the wisest: but the others declared this at once to be true, explaining that it was indeed a mark of wisdom to set the truth of nature above the statutes of the law. Croesus however ridiculed him, as if these answers savoured of Scythia and a bestial way of life.
I can't help but see that there might be some influence of these ideas on the Pauline conception in the Letter to the Romans:

Quote:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness when God judges through Christ, as my gospel declares.
What do y'all think? I can see no evidence that Anarchasis was a dualist. Nevertheless this notion of 'law of nature' versus a manmade law seems very important to Pauline corpus and hence Marcion.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 04:21 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I had never realized there is such an extensive scholarly literature arguing or probing into the possibility that Anacharsis of Scythia might have had an influence on the Pauline corpus. The truth is that I had never thought much about Anacharsis before. But here is a lengthy examination as to whether the narrative of the decline of civilization in Romans 1:24 - 28 was written under the influence of Anacharsis's ninth epistle:

Quote:
Paul's use of the decline story resembles Anacharsis letter 9. Anacharsis was a Scythian prince who toured Greece in the sixth century BCE. Cynics and others developed him into an ideal model of the primitive or natural life and critic of Greek civilization. The Cynic letters of Anacharsis were written sometime before the second century BCE Letter 9 is a protreptic letter purportedly urging King Croesus to give up his life of vice and luxury and to adopt the simple and virtuous life exemplified by the Scythians. The letter constitutes a call to the Cynic gospel and Cynic life.

The author opens by charging the Greek poets with telling untruths about the gods. They ascribed their pursuit of self-interest rather than of sharing to the gods. The earth was once the common possession of both the gods and humans. Humans, however, transgressed the law (parenomesan) by dividing the earth among themselves and the gods. The author says, "In return for these [that is, divisions of the earth into private precincts] , the gods gave back fitting gifts: strife, pleasure and meanness of spirit." All of the evils afflicting humans come from these vices that the gods bestowed on people for their error. These evils include unnatural activities such as tilling the soil and waging war. Anacharsis continues the account of the fall state in the third person plural, describing the results of the vices given by the gods and the concomitant self-deceit. The style is antithetical: "For though they planted in great abundance, they harvested little, and though they worked at many crafts, their luxury was ephemeral. They sought the riches of the earth in various ways, and came to believe their digging a wonderful thing. They consider most happy the first man who discovered this little undertaking. They remain ignorant of their child-like self-deception."

Anacharsis concludes his account of human decline by turning to address Croesus directly: "I have heard that this evil which has fallen on most men has also fallen on you." In the remainder of the letter, Anacharsis both admonishes Croesus for his particular vice and positively urges him to follow the Cynic way. Anacharsis moves from a general description of the fallen state to direct admonition of Croesus, his epistolary audience. The admonition gets its point and force through the assertion that Croesus participates in this fallen state of civilized culture.

There is no evidence that Paul read or knew Anacharsis 9 or any other Hellenistic degeneration story, story, but, first, he had assimilated a basic pattern of hortatory discourse and, second, by reading 1:18-2:16 as such one can make better sense of its complexity and detail than does the traditional reading that has been so forcefully criticized.

Clearly Paul and the author of Anacharsis 9 have fundamentally different myths about humanity's fall. Quite possibly, the Hesiodic legends had affected the way that Jews told the Genesis narrative. Nevertheless, the narratives are varying accounts of the primeval decline of humankind. Paul differs most markedly in his tracing of human degeneracy to idolatry, while for Anacharsis decline resulted from humans attributing their selfish division of the earth to the gods in order to justify that division. The Jewish story forms an originary tale of Israel and the other peoples, and the issue of idolatry allowed Jews to differentiate their narratives from other stories. Paul stresses that all unrighteous people (1:18; 2:1) are answerable to the just anger of God. While the punishment of the gods plays a key role in Anacharsis, the letter lacks Paul's emphasis on the justness and inclusiveness of divine punishment. Paul wants to establish God's impartial treatment of both Jews and gentiles.

Although both Paul and Anacharsis presuppose a golden age, a Garden of Eden, neither makes anything of it, partly because both are interested only in the admonitory use of the narrative. Both fall narratives move to direct indictment of their respective epistolary audiences. They begin by asserting that human decline stemmed from false conceptions of the divine. For Paul, people rejected knowledge and worship of the one true God, lapsing into worship of creatures instead (1:18-21); for Anacharsis, humans divided the earth, which was meant to be shared by all, into private precincts owned by men and dedicated to specific gods: "Since they knew nothing of koinonia in anything, they ascribed their own evil to the gods."

In the next step, both explain that God or the gods punished people with measure for measure penalties corresponding to their errors. In both cases, the penalties are evil habits of behavior that cause hardship, misery, and social conflict. Anacharsis says that the gods gave fitting gifts in return (theoi dora preponta antedoresanto) for human attempts to divide the earth. The gifts are antisocial vices that divide human society (eris, hedone, mikropsychia). These vices are in turn at the root of unnatural evils. Paul might have used tilling the soil to illustrate God's punishment of sin (Rom 8:19-22; cf. Gen 3:17-19), for the Hesiodic and Genesis stories have parallels in that respect, but other evils are more central for Romans as it constructs a picture of the gentile. He employs three periods to show that God's punishment of the wicked has corresponded to the crime. Jewish and Greek sources widely assume that measure for measure retribution characterizes true justice. Paul does not just illustrate gentile sin but claims that God deals with it justly (1:22-2:5) and impartially (2:6-16). God allowed those who replaced the glory (doxa) of God for idols to dishonor (atimazesthai) their bodies (22-24). Those who exchanged (metellaxan) the truth about God for a lie, God permitted to exchange (metellaxan) natural for unnatural sexual relations (25 - 27). People (28-32) who did not see fit (ouk edokimasan) to recognize God, God gave up to an unfit mind (adokimon noun). In each instance, the text emphasizes God's punishing activity (paredoken ho theos; 24, 26, 28) and his measure for measure justice.

Both Paul and the author in Anacharsis 9 conclude their accounts by suddenly ending their third person descriptions and addressing individuals in the second person singular. Both accuse this person of practicing the same kinds of evils described in the account of humanity's decline. The admonition of Croesus combined with an exhortation for him to adopt a more natural way of life occupies the remainder of that letter. The "real" audience intended by the author of this letter was not, of course, Croesus but some unknown readers who the author thought might be open to the Cynic life. When Anacharsis admonishes Croesus for his soft life, he is actually admonishing readers in this audience [p. 99 - 100]http://books.google.com/books?id=HBL...20paul&f=false
My work reconstructing the original shape of the Clement of Alexandria/Marcionite epistle makes this argument much, much stronger. The Clement of Alexandria/Marcionite epistle had nothing about idolatry for instance.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-09-2011, 11:40 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default 10 Marcionite Epistles, 10 Cynic Epistles of Anacharsis

I think then I have found a very good reason why Marcion might have been compared to Anacharsis the Scythian or been likened to the leader of a loose band of Scythians. Yes, his society resembled the primitive egalitarianism of Scythian culture but more significantly Anacharsis was forever remembered in contemporary pagan culture as a barbarian king traveling through pagan lands and establishing a collection of correspondences which basically questioned the value of Greek culture, accused it of corruption and weakness. It wasn't just the 10 pseudo-historical letters attributed to Anacharsis the Scythian:

Quote:
there are 10 epistles attributed to Anacharsis ... The letters of Anacharsis may have been written in the 3rd century BCE ... Anacharsis and Heraclitus predate the Cynics, but they were both regarded by the Cynics to have anticipated Cynic ideals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic_epistles
There was also a body of literature - dialogues if you will - Lucian of Samosata being the most famous where the Scythian king openly questioned the value of the cornerstone of Hellenistic culture, the gymnasium.

It can't be coincidental that if you look at the oldest collection of the Apostolikon, P46 you have a collection of ten epistles:

Quote:
The seven leaves missing from the papyrus' beginning unquestionably contained the first half of Romans. However, the contents of the seven missing leaves from the papyrus' end is uncertain. There would be enough space for 2 Thessalonians and possibly Philemon, but not for the Pastoral epistles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46
The Marcionite collection certainly did not include the Pastorals, which theoretically at least meant a New Testament built around a gospel and ten epistles:

Quote:
It is a canon compiled by Marcion, the founder of Marcionism. Marcion did not include any of the modern Gospels, only his Gospel of Marcion, which according to his enemies he had edited from the Gospel of Luke, whereas he claimed that it was their version which was edited from his original gospel. He includes ten epistles by Paul, omitting the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy), as well as To the Hebrews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles
To this end we have on the one hand a 10 epistle collection of letters in the Marcionite canon which like Anacharsis's 10 epistle collection in the hands of the Cynics represented a barbarian criticizing the corruption and weakness of Greek culture.

This can't be coincidental and must be the most striking reason for pagans to have identified Paul/Marcion as a Scythian.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-14-2011, 08:41 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

The shoe has finally dropped. I think I found the witness in the writings of Clement that the Alexandrian tradition was likened to the very Scythian tribes that we find at the beginning of Against Marcion 1. Here is the passage from Against Marcion:

Quote:
The sea called Euxine, or hospitable, is belied by its nature and put to ridicule by its name. Even its situation would prevent you from reckoning Pontus hospitable: as though ashamed of its own barbarism it has set itself at a distance from our more civilized waters. Strange tribes inhabit it—if indeed living in a wagon can be called inhabiting. These have no certain dwelling-place: their life is uncouth: their sexual activity is promiscuous, and for the most part unhidden even when they hide it: they advertise it by hanging a quiver on the yoke of the wagon, so that none may inadvertently break in. So little respect have they for their weapons of war. They carve up their fathers' corpses along with mutton, to gulp down at banquets. If any die in a condition not good for eating, their death is a disgrace. Women also have lost the gentleness, along with the modesty, of their sex. They display their breasts, they do their house-work with battle-axes, they prefer fighting to matrimonial duty. There is sternness also in the climate—never broad daylight, the sun always niggardly, the only air they have is fog, the whole year is winter, every wind that blows is the north wind. Water becomes water only by heat- ing: rivers are no rivers, only ice: mountains are piled high up with snow: all is torpid, everything stark. Savagery is there the only thing warm—such savagery as has provided the theatre with tales of Tauric sacrifices, Colchian love-affairs, and Caucasian crucifixions.

Even so, the most barbarous and melancholy thing about Pontus is that Marcion was born there, more uncouth than a Scythian, more unsettled than a Wagon-dweller, more uncivilized than a Massagete, with more effrontery than an Amazon, darker than fog, colder than winter, more brittle than ice, more treacherous than the Danube, more precipitous than Caucasus. Evidently so, when by him the true Prometheus, God Almighty, is torn to bits with blasphemies.
More ill-conducted also is Marcion than the wild beasts of that barbarous land: for is any beaver more self-castrating than this man who has abolished marriage? What Pontic mouse is more corrosive than the man who has gnawed away the Gospels? Truly the Euxine has given birth to a wild animal more acceptable to philosophers than to Christians: that dog-worshipper Diogenes carried a lamp about at midday, looking to find a man, whereas Marcion by putting out the light of his own faith has lost the God whom once he had found. His followers cannot deny that his faith at first agreed with ours, for his own letter proves it: so that without further ado that man can be marked down as a heretic, or 'chooser', who, forsaking what had once been, has chosen for himself that which previously was not. For that which is of later importation must needs be reckoned heresy, precisely because that has to be considered truth which was delivered of old and from the beginning.
Notice now that the very comparison is already known to Clement yet now it is directed against the Alexandrian Church:

Quote:
So the Church is full of those, as well chaste women as men, who all their life have contemplated the death which rouses up to Christ. For the individual whose life is framed as ours is, may philosophize without Learning, whether barbarian, whether Greek, whether slave—whether an old man, or a boy, or a woman. For self-control is common to all human beings who have made choice of it. And we admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue. As far as respects human nature, the woman does not possess one nature, and the man exhibit another, but the same: so also with virtue. If, consequently, a self-restraint and righteousness, and whatever qualities are regarded as following them, is the virtue of the male, it belongs to the male alone to be virtuous, and to the woman to be licentious and unjust. But it is offensive even to say this. Accordingly woman is to practice self-restraint and righteousness, and every other virtue, as well as man, both bond and free; since it is a fit consequence that the same nature possesses one and the same virtue. We do not say that woman’s nature is the same as man’s, as she is woman. For undoubtedly it stands to reason that some difference should exist between each of them, in virtue of which one is male and the other female. Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to woman, as she is woman, and not as she is a human being. But if there were no difference between man and woman, both would do and suffer the same things. As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping. “For I would have you know,” says the apostle, “that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.” For as we say that the man ought to be continent, and superior to pleasures; so also we reckon that the woman should be continent and practiced in fighting against pleasures. “But I say, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh,” counsels the apostolic command; “for the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These, then, are contrary” (not as good to evil, but as fighting advantageously), he adds therefore, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornication uncleanness, profligacy, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, strifes, jealousies, wrath, contentions, dissensions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I tell you before, as I have also said before, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, temperance, goodness, faith, meekness.” He calls sinners, as I think, “flesh,” and the righteous “spirit.” Further, manliness is to be assumed in order to produce confidence and forbearance, so as “to him that strikes on the one cheek, to give to him the other; and to him that takes away the cloak, to yield to him the coat also,” strongly, restraining anger. For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable. I hear that the Sarmatian women practice war no less than the men; and the women of the Sacæ besides, who shoot backwards, feigning flight as well as the men. I am aware, too, that the women near Iberia practice manly work and toil, not refraining from their tasks even though near their delivery; but even in the very struggle of her pains, the woman, on being delivered, taking up the infant, carries it home. Further, the females no less than the males manage the house, and hunt, and keep the flocks:—

“Cressa the hound ran keenly in the stag’s track.”
Women are therefore to philosophize equally with men, though the males are preferable at everything, unless they have become effeminate.
To the whole human race, then, discipline and virtue are a necessity, if they would pursue after happiness. And how recklessly Euripides writes sometimes this and sometimes that! On one occasion, “For every wife is inferior to her husband, though the most excellent one marry her that is of fair fame.” And on another:—

“For the chaste is her husband’s slave,
While she that is unchaste in her folly despises her consort.
. . . . For nothing is better and more excellent,
Than when as husband and wife ye keep house,
Harmonious in your sentiments.”

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if “the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,” the man, “being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.” Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, “Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.” And in that to the Colossians it is said, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Servants, be obedient in all things to those who are your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but with singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as serving the Lord and not men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer shall receive the wrong, which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons. Masters, render to your servants justice and equity; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Christ is all, and in all.” And the earthly Church is the image of the heavenly, as we pray also “that the will of God may be done upon the earth as in heaven.” “Putting on, therefore, bowels of mercy, gentleness, humbleness, meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if one have a quarrel against any man; as also Christ hath forgiven us, so also let us. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which ye are called in one body; and be thankful.” For there is no obstacle to adducing frequently the same Scripture in order to put Marcion to the blush, if perchance he be persuaded and converted; by learning that the faithful ought to be grateful to God the Creator, who hath called us, and who preached the Gospel in the body. From these considerations the unity of the faith is clear, and it is shown who is the perfect man; so that though some are reluctant, and offer as much resistance as they can, though menaced with punishments at the hand of husband or master, both the domestic and the wife will philosophize. Moreover, the free, though threatened with death at a tyrant’s hands, and brought before the tribunals, and all his substances imperilled, will by no means abandon piety; nor will the wife who dwells with a wicked husband, or the son if he has a bad father, or the domestic if he has a bad master, ever fail in holding nobly to virtue. But as it is noble for a man to die for virtue, and for liberty, and for himself, so also is it for a woman. For this is not peculiar to the nature of males, but to the nature of the good. Accordingly, both the old man, the young, and the servant will live faithfully, and if need be die; which will be to be made alive by death. So we know that both children, and women, and servants have often, against their fathers’, and masters’, and husbands’ will, reached the highest degree of excellence. Wherefore those who are determined to live piously ought none the less to exhibit alacrity, when some seem to exercise compulsion on them; but much more, I think, does it become them to show eagerness, and to strive with uncommon vigour, lest, being overcome, they abandon the best and most indispensable counsels. For it does not, I think, admit of comparison, whether it be better to be a follower of the Almighty than to choose the darkness of demons. For the things which are done by us on account of others we are to do always, endeavouring to have respect to those for whose sake it is proper that they be done, regarding the gratification rendered in their case, as what is to be our rule; but the things which are done for our own sake rather than that of others, are to be done with equal earnestness, whether they are like to please certain people or not. If some indifferent things have obtained such honour as to appear worthy of adoption, though against the will of some; much more is virtue to be regarded by us as worth contending for, looking the while to nothing but what can be rightly done, whether it seem good to others or not. Well then, Epicurus, writing to Menœceus, says, “Let not him who is young delay philosophizing, and let not the old man grow weary of philosophizing; for no one is either not of age or past age for attending to the health of his soul. And he who says that the time for philosophizing is not come or is past, is like the man who says that the time for happiness is not come or has gone. So that young as well as old ought to philosophize: the one, in order that, while growing old, he may grow young in good things out of favour accruing from what is past; and the other, that he may be at once young and old, from want of fear for the future.” (Strom 4.8)
People will argue that it is impossible that Clement could have known Tertullian's argument but I say look at the opening words of Tertullian's work. Our present edition is a reworking of something much older.

I think this is very significant. I think this also demonstrates that Clement's reaction here is phoney. He is not a misogynist. He's pretending to be one in order to appeal to contemporary mores. "nor when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede [anything] ... but should even deny [the truth] on oath."
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.