Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 08:28 PM

Another example of the mystical double meaning to the word 'make' in 1 Corinthians

Quote:

Those, therefore, who are consecrated to God must never live mortally. "Nor," as Paul says, "is it meet to make the members of Christ the members of an harlot; nor must the temple of God be made the temple of base affections."

Οὐκ ἄρα ποτὲ θνητῶς βιωτέον ἁγιαζομένους θεῷ οὐδὲ μήν, ὥς φησιν ὁ Παῦλος, οὐ χρὴ πόρνης ποιεῖν μέλη τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέλη οὐδὲ μὴν νεὼν τῶν παθῶν τῶν αἰσχρῶν τὸν νεὼν τοῦ θεοῦ ποιη τέον

Just look at the way Clement's reading of 1 Corinthians 6.15 differs from our own text most notably the removal of the word . Clement reports:

Quote:

οὐδὲ μήν, ὥς φησιν ὁ Παῦλος, οὐ χρὴ πόρνης ποιεῖν μέλη τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέλη οὐδὲ μὴν νεὼν τῶν παθῶν τῶν αἰσχρῶν τὸν νεὼν τοῦ θεοῦ ποιη τέον

While our text reads:

Quote:

οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ἄρας οὖν τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης μέλη; μὴ γένοιτο.

The differences here are quite remarkable. In English again:

Quote:

“Nor,” as Paul says, “is it meet to make the members of Christ the members of an harlot; nor must the temple of God be made the temple of base affections.”

versus

Quote:

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!

Clement's point becomes a little clearer when we look at his citation of the material just before and after 1 Cor 6.15 both in Stromata Book 3:

Quote:

This is why the Apostle makes the lofty statement, "I wrote in my letter that you should have nothing to do with profligate living" down to "The body is not for sexual promiscuity but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." To make sure that he is not identifying marriage with fornication he adds, "Or do you not realize that anyone who attaches himself to a prostitute becomes physically one with her?" Will anyone call a virgin before marriage a prostitute? [Clement Stromata 3.18]

ὅθεν γενναίως ὁ ἀπόστολος ἔγραψα ὑμῖν φησὶν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις ἕως τὸ δὲ σῶμα οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ κύριος τῷ σώματι. καὶ ὅτι οὐ τὸν γάμον πορνείαν λέγει, ἐπιφέρει· ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ὁ κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ ἓν σῶμά ἐστιν; ἢ πόρνην τις ἐρεῖ τὴν παρθένον πρὶν ἢ γῆμαι

and

Quote:

He is quick to say, "Every other sin. is outside the body. Sexual promiscuity is a sin against one’s own body." [Stromata 3.12]

πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει

When we construct the basic flow of this section in Clement's NT canon we get:

Quote:

The body is not for πορνεύων but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body [1 Cor 6.13] Nor is it meet to make the members of Christ the members of an harlot; nor must the temple of God be made the temple of base affections. [1 Cor 6.15] Or do you not realize that anyone who attaches himself to a prostitute becomes physically one with her? [1 Cor 6.16] Every other sin. is outside the body. πορνείαν is a sin against one’s own body [1 Cor 6.18]

Once we look back and realize that Clement's overriding point is that 'things that lead to death' (θνητός) are associated with πορνεία it is easy to see that what is really being discussed is the union with Wisdom (= the Pentateuch) vs. union with Christ (= the gospel). One leads to death but the other leads to life. Yet the sexual metaphor is what is significant. The allusion then to ποιέω (= to make) is again necessarily linked to a sexual union, marriage with Christ. The whole 'brother making' is a secondary development from an original quasi-gnostic union with Christ.

The reference to θνητός is key.

Quote:

θνητός E.Ion973,IA901, 1396: Dor. θνα_τός (v. infr.): Aeol. θνᾶτος Sapph.Supp.13.7: (θνῄσκω):—
A. liable to death, mortal, opp. ἀθάνατος, freq. in Hom., Od.5.213, al.; “θ. ἄνδρες” Hes. Th.967; “οὐδὲν . . θνητὸν ἐόν” Hdt.8.98; “ζῷα πάντα θ. καὶ φυτά” Pl.Sph. 265c: as Subst., θνητοί mortals, Od.19.593, etc.; θνηταί mortal women, 5.213; πάντων τῶν θ. of all mortal creatures, Hdt.1.216, 2.68; εἴ τις φθόγγος （φθόγγον cod., but θ. is only used of living persons) “εἰσακούεται θνητῶν παρ᾽ Ἅιδῃ” E.HF491: Comp., “ἐν θνητῷ ὄντες, ἔτι θνητοτέρους ἑαυτοὺς ποιοῦντες” Porph.Abst.4.20: Sup., “θνητότατος πάντων” Plot.5.1.1.
2. of things, befitting mortals, human, “ἔργματα” E.Ba. 1069; “θνατὰ θνατοῖσι πρέπει” Pi.I.5(4).16; “θνατὰ χρὴ τὸν θνατὸν . . φρονεῖν” Epich.[263], cf. S.Tr.473; “τὸ δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ” Pl.Smp.202e.

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 10:21 PM

The same neo-Marcionite formulation in later Alexandrian thought:

Quote:

When God the Almighty was making humankind through his own Word, he perceived that they, owing to the limitation of their nature, could not of themselves have any knowledge of their artificer, the incorporeal and uncreated ... But, in fact, the Good God has given them a share in his own image, that is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, and has made even themselves after the same image and likeness. Why? Simply in order that through this gift of Godlikeness in themselves after the same image and likeness. Why? Simply in order that through this gift of Godlikeness in themselves they may be able to perceive the image absolute, that is, the Word himself, and through him to apprehend the Father, which knowledge of their maker is for humans the only really happy and blessed life (Athanasius On the Incarnation 3)

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 11:59 PM

Another parallel in Clement's Stromata to the mystical 'manufacturing' of Christ through food (with the Marcionite term χρηστός):

Quote:

τροφὴ γὰρ καὶ ἡ παίδευσις ἡ χρηστὴ σῳζομένη φύσεις ἀγαθὰς ποιεῖ, καὶ αἱ φύσεις αἱ χρησταὶ τοιαύτης παιδείας ἀντιλαμβανόμεναι ἔτι βελτίους τῶν πρότερον φύονται εἴς τε τὰ
ἄλλα καὶ εἰς τὸ γεννᾶν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοι

For nutriment, and the training which is maintained gentle, make noble natures; and noble natures, when they have received such training, become still better than before both in other respects, but especially in productiveness, as is the case with the other creatures (Clement Stromata 1.6)

stephan huller · 10-17-2011, 02:27 PM

Another person who argues that adelphopoiesis has nothing to do with homosexuality:

Quote:

For Florensky, friendship is elevated to the realm of the sacred. He describes at some length a little-known Orthodox ritual called adelphopoiesis (''making brothers''), a kind of sacramental blessing of a friendship. Although there are different versions of this rite, in general it follows this outline: The two ''brothers'' stand in front of the altar, the older on the right, the younger on the left. Before them is a lectern on which the cross and Bible are placed. Prayers and litanies are recited to the effect that the two will be united in love. They are bound with a single belt, they place their hands on the Bible, and each is given a candle. Two passages of the New Testament on love are read (1 Corinthians 12:27–13:8 and John 17:18–26), followed by more prayers and litanies. (the bread and wine of the Eucharist before they are consecrated) from a common cup and are ledaround the lectern holding hands. A short liturgical chant is sung: ''Lord, watch from above.'' Finally, they exchange kisses and the first verse of Psalm 133 is sung: ''Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!''

Viewing things in the light of today's concerns, some might see adelphopoiesis as a muted antecedent of gay marriage (and it has been invoked in this context), but this view doesn't seem accurate, since the Orthodox Church has, always denounced homosexuality. Rather adelphopoiesis probably is, as Florensky suggests, a way of combining philia and agape. ''Just as agapic love must be accompanied by philic love, which is irreducible to but inseparable from agapic love, so liturgical offices of the agapic and philic unions, which are irreducible to each other, must co-exist." (Richard Smoley, Conscious Love p. 122)

Apparently this Florensky was a very influential Russian Orthodox theologian at the turn of the twentieth century who according to Wikipedia is often celebrated as the Russian Leonardo Da Vinci:

Quote:

According to Princeton University Press: "The book is a series of twelve letters to a "brother" or "friend," who may be understood symbolically as Christ. Central to Florensky's work is an exploration of the various meanings of Christian love, which is viewed as a combination of philia (friendship) and agape (universal love). He describes the ancient Christian rites of the adelphopoiesis (brother making), joining male friends in chaste bonds of love. In addition, Florensky is one of the first thinkers in the twentieth century to develop the idea of the Divine Sophia, who has become one of the central concerns of feminist theologians."

On the question of whether Florensky was himself a homosexual http://vox-nova.com/2010/04/08/vox-n...-quiet-genius/

stephan huller · 10-17-2011, 02:41 PM

I found what purports to be the original Orthodox ceremony for Adelphopoiesis http://www.foxearth.demon.co.uk/cags...phopoiesis.htm

Quote:

Eastern Orthodox Order for making brothers
Translated from the Greek “Adelphopoiesis” (and in part from the Slavonic)

The narrator is standing at the lectern and the Chorus are seated in their places. The Holy Gospel book is standing upright on the “altar”. On a table are a lighted candle in a candlestick and two candles with cardboard guards, also a cushion with the two torques.
Narrator: Our first re-enactment today is of the Eastern Orthodox ceremony for the “Making of Brothers” – “Adelphopoiesis” in Greek. It is recorded in at least 12 manuscripts of different ages, some in Greek and some in Slavonic. Over the long period covered by the manuscripts, various items were added to the service, but many elements recur again and again. The version we are presenting today is intended to show the general shape of the service, rather than sticking strictly to any one manuscript. In any case we can assume that the full service would be considerably longer than our re-enactment, and possibly part of a celebration lasting several days.
The service has some elements in common with the Eucharist or Sacred Liturgy, but is better seen as a “Blessing Ceremony” – in other words an example of the many ceremonies which the Orthodox Church provides for blessing various persons and objects; it’s one of a very few such ceremonies in which the couple receive communion from the presanctified Body of Christ, consecrated at the previous Sunday’s Eucharist.
The service starts with a litany, in which the deacon announces a number of petitions to God, and after each petition the congregation reply “Lord have mercy” (in Greek “Kyrie Eleison”). The Great Litany is a key element of the Sacred Liturgy and of other Eastern Orthodox services, but the manuscripts prescribe a number of additional petitions, specifically related to the uniting of the couple.
Most of the versions include a reading from the epistles and a reading from the gospels. The epistle from 1 Corinthians includes a well-known passage about Love. The gospel from John Chapter 17 includes Jesus’ prayer for his disciples that they should be one, just as he himself was one with God the Father.
We should imagine the service taking place in a church very different from what we are used to in the West, and probably quite a bit smaller from the one we are in today. The altar would be behind the screen or iconostasis, and so it’s hidden from view except when the Royal Doors are open. There would be no seats or pews: the clergy and people would remain standing throughout.
The Priest would be assisted by one or more deacons, and possibly subdeacons and readers.
The entire service would be chanted or sung, but we’re speaking the words today. We can expect that the people would all join in with “Amen” or “Lord have mercy” and some of the congregation would act as a choir or chorus to sing the more complicated passages. The texts mention a number of contakia or hymns, and there are various short extracts from the psalms, often including part or all of Psalm 133, which begins “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to live together!” and is often associated with the concept of Sworn Brotherhood.
You will notice that the couple do not exchange vows, and indeed remain silent throughout, just as they do in Eastern Orthodox marriage ceremonies to this day.
The book of the Holy Gospels has an important place in the ceremony: it is present as an icon on the altar at the beginning, the Priest blesses the people with it, the couple place their hands on it, it is taken in procession by the deacon when he reads the gospel, and the couple kiss the book before receiving communion.
The service begins with the ceremonial entrance of the clergy, followed by the couple.
The Priest processes from the back of the church, preceded by the two Deacons (Deacon 2 is swinging the censer) and followed by the couple.
Narrator: We can imagine that we, the couple’s friends and relations, will have come with them in procession from their home, and follow them now into the church.
We’ve had to simplify things a little for the re-enactment, but we’ve got two Deacons, followed by a Priest, and of course a couple, whom we’re calling “John” and “Andrew”. We also have a chorus to recite the chants. We’ve also had to simplify the vestments, but we’ve represented the main ones – the Priest and Deacons all wear the sticharion, equivalent to an alb, the Deacons each wear an orarion or stole across one shoulder, the Priest wears another kind of stole, called an epitrachelion, and on top of that a phelonion, equivalent to the Western chasuble. Plus of course the clerical hat or kalumaukion. We should also imagine the church being full of clouds of incense, but for today we’ve not actually lit the censer.
The two Deacons take their places behind the blessing table; the Priest goes to the “altar” where the Holy Gospel book is standing. The couple stand in front of the blessing table.
Deacon 1: Master, give the blessing!
The Priest blesses the people with the Holy Gospel, while everyone makes the sign of the cross.
Priest: Blessed is the kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit now and always and unto ages of ages.
People: Amen.
The Priest puts the Holy Gospel on the blessing table. He gives his hat to Deacon 1 who puts it away on the table.
Narrator: Following the standard opening blessing, the first part of the service is a litany, led by the deacon. During this part of the service, the couple have their right hands on the book of the Holy Gospel and hold candles in their left hands.
The Priest puts the couple’s right hands on the Holy Gospel, the older first. Deacon 1 lights a candle from the one that is already lit, and gives it to the Priest who gives it to the older of the two to hold in his left hand. This is repeated with the younger of the two. Deacon 2 gives the censer to the Priest who censes the couple. The Priest returns the censer to Deacon 2, who puts it away.
Deacon 1: In peace we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: For heavenly peace, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: For the peace of the entire world, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: For this holy place, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: That these your servants, John and Andrew, be blessed with your spiritual benediction, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: That their love may abide without offence or scandal all the days of their lives, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: That they may be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: That the Lord God may grant them unashamed faithfulness and sincere love, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Deacon 1: That they and we ourselves be saved from all affliction, we pray to the Lord.
People: Lord have mercy.
Narrator: The litany would continue with a number of standard petitions, but we will move on to a prayer which is found in nearly all the manuscripts. It adds status to the relationship by recalling well-known pairs of saints: Philip and Bartholomew, Sergius and Bacchus, and in other versions also Cosmas and Damian, Cyrus and John, George and Demetrius, and the two Theodores.
Priest: Forasmuch as you are merciful and loving, O Lord, who established humankind according to your own image and likeness, who were well pleased that your holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew should become brothers, joined one to the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit; as you found your holy martyrs Sergius and Bacchus worthy to become brothers; bless also these, your servants, John and Andrew, joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and the spirit, granting unto them peace and love and concord.
Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity; may they love one another without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of Mary the Bearer of God and all your saints, for all glory is yours, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.
People: Amen.
Narrator: The next prayer also occurs in nearly all of the manuscripts. During this prayer the Priest takes his epitrachelion or stole and lays it across the hands of the couple, symbolically binding them together. In one version of the service he binds the couple together with his holy belt.
The Priest takes his epitrachelion and lays it across the hands of the couple.
Priest: O Lord Our God, who grants us all those things needed for salvation and teaches us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of mankind, these your servants who love each other with a love of the spirit and have come into this your holy church to be blessed and consecrated.
Grant them unashamed fidelity and sincere love, and, as you gave your peace and your love to your holy disciples and apostles, give them also to these, O Christ our God, and give them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal.
For you are the light and the truth and yours is the glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.
People: Amen.
The couple remove their hands from the Gospel. The Priest takes the candles from them and gives them to Deacon 1, who puts them away.
Narrator: We believe that the ceremony would have included an exchange of gifts as a symbol of union. Giving a ring, as in a marriage ceremony, would have been inappropriate, so we’ve included an exchange of necklaces or torques, similar to those depicted in icons over many centuries, including a well-known icon of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.
Deacon 2 fetches the cushion with the torques. The Priest takes one of the torques and passes it to the older of the two, who puts it round the other’s neck. This is repeated with the younger of the two. Deacon 2 puts the cushion away.
Narrator: The next part of the service comprises epistle and gospel readings, with chants from the psalms.
All remain in their places for the epistle reading.
Chorus: Wonderful is the Lord among his saints, the Lord of Israel.
Bless the Lord in his congregations.
Deacon 1: Let us attend!
Deacon 2: The reading from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you a limb or organ of it. Within our community God has appointed, in the first place, apostles, in the second place prophets, thirdly teachers; then miracle-workers, then those who have gifts of healing, or ability to help others, or power to guide them, or the gift of various kinds of tongues.
Are all apostles? All prophets? All teachers? Do all work miracles? Have all gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Can all interpret?
The higher gifts are those you should aim at.
And I will show you the best way of all.
I may speak with the tongues of men or of angels, but if I am without love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal. I may have the gift of prophecy, and know every hidden truth; I may have faith strong enough to move mountains; but if I have no love, I am nothing. I may dole out all I possess, or even give my body to be burnt, but if I have no love, I am none the better.
Love is patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offence. Love keeps no score of wrongs; does not gloat over other men’s sins, but delights in the truth. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope and its endurance. [1 Corinthians 12 v.27-31 and 13: v.1-8]
Deacon 1 removes the Holy Gospel from the blessing table and holds it in front of him as he processes to the centre of the nave, preceded by Deacon 2. He opens the book at the appropriate place, and Deacon 2 holds it open for him while he reads. The Priest remains in his place.
Chorus: Alleluia, Alleluia!
Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to live together! Alleluia!
Note: Passages printed in black are said by the chorus leader only. The full chorus join in with the passages in green, and with all the passages marked as spoken by the People and printed in blue.
Deacon 1: The reading from the Holy Gospel according to John.
After these words Jesus looked up to heaven and said: “As you have sent me into the world I have sent them into the world, and for their sake I now consecrate myself, that they too may be consecrated by the truth.
“But it is not for these alone that I pray, but for those also who through their words put their faith in me; may they all be one: as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. The glory which you gave me I have given to them that they may be one, as we are one; I in them and you in me, may they be perfectly one. Then the world will learn that you sent me, and that you loved them as you loved me.
“Father I desire that these men, who are your gift to me, may be with me where I am, so that they may look upon my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the world began. O righteous Father, although the world does not know you, I know you, and these men know that you sent me. I made your name known to them, and they will make it known, so that the love you had for me may be in them, and I may be in them.”
[John 17 v.1 and 18-26]
Deacon 1 closes the Holy Gospel and holds it before him as he returns, preceded by Deacon 2, behind the blessing table. He replaces the book on the blessing table. The two Deacons return to their places.
Narrator: The kiss of peace between the couple is an important part of the ceremony.
Priest: Peace be to all.
Deacon 2: Let us love one another.
The couple kiss the Holy Gospel, the older first, and then kiss each other.
Deacon 2: Let us bow our heads!
All except the Priest bow their heads.
Priest: O Lord our God, you are the creator of love, the master of peace, and the saviour of all; bestow upon us true love to love one another, and grant us to think on that which is of Jesus, your only Son, our God. Deem us worthy to receive each other in love as your only Son received us, and grant us to serve each other in love and fulfill the law of your Christ with our whole hearts. For yours is all honour and glory, for ever and ever.
People: Amen.
All raise their heads.
Narrator: The Priest and people would now say the Our Father. Next the Deacon would say “Behold, holy things for the holy people!” and the Priest would give the couple communion from the reserved sacrament.
Following the communion, the Priest leads the couple three times round the sanctuary, while a chant is sung.
During the following chant, the Priest takes the older of the two by the hand, the older takes the younger by the hand, and the Priest leads them three times round the blessing table, returning them to their places.
Chorus: O Lord lead me in your truth.
Turn again, O God of hosts, look down from heaven.
Blessed is the man who fears God.
O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven.
Hear us, O shepherd of Israel, who leads Joseph like a flock.
O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven.
Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to live together!
It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down to the beard, even Aaron’s beard, that ran down to the hem of his garments;
As the dew of mount Hermon, that comes down upon the mountains of Zion:
For there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
Both now and forever and to ages of ages. Amen.
Narrator: Some of the manuscripts have at this point a hymn to Mary the Bearer of God, and a hymn to the holy martyrs – there’s a hymn to Saints Sergius and Bacchus which would fit very well here.
Priest: Have mercy upon us, O God, of your great kindness. Lord hear us and have mercy.
People: Lord have mercy.
Priest: We pray also for these servants, John and Andrew, for their life, their health, their salvation and the forgiveness of their sins. May they continue in union without blame and without temptation. Let us all say: Lord have mercy.
People: Lord have mercy.
Narrator: The service would end with a dismissal prayer naming again the couple, their name saints, and the other paired saints that have been mentioned during the ceremony.
Following the end of the blessing service, we can imagine that we would join the happy couple returning home for continued festivities with their friends and relations.
The clergy and couple process to the vestry to disrobe.
Narrator: To summarise what the service has said about the relationship being celebrated:
It is a loving relationship
It is intended to be a life-long relationship
It is a Christian relationship, between people joined together, as one of the prayers says “not by the bond of nature but by faith and the spirit”.

Toto · 10-17-2011, 04:17 PM

I'm not sure what all this means. Christians rejected most heterosexuality activity as well as homosexuality up until modern times, at least in theory. Concupiscence, including the sexual desire between married couples, is sin. So why not consecrate a friendship between two men who are not supposed to be having sex of any sort in any case?

Of course, we know how realistic all the Christian sanctions on sexual activity have been - about as effective as abstinence-only education which tells American teenagers to just not have sex. And it's not just Christians. A few decades ago, the US was full of Indian gurus preaching brahmacharya, or celibacy, to American spiritual seekers. Almost all of them were discredited when it turned out that they had surveyed the devotees and picked out a vulnerable young woman to be their sexual partner.

There is a comparison with dietary ascetics, who believe that it is virtuous or healthy to conquer their appetites for food, especially fat. They find themselves tempted to eat an entire carton of Hagen Dazs ice cream in secret, and yet never revise their anti-fat beliefs.

stephan huller · 10-17-2011, 06:11 PM

I agree with everything you are saying. I still think there is something lurking beneath all of this that no one has figured out properly and it has something to do with the Letter to Theodore discovered at Mar Saba in 1958. I looked Clement's citations of John chapter 17. It's the same section of text witnessed here - i.e. it starts at John 17:17. While that's not significant in itself, the material is quite suggestive and could easily be taken the 'wrong way' alongside the reports referenced in the Letter to Theodore.

Clement references John 17:17 - 26 many times at the beginning of Instructor Book 1 as a way of differentiating the true Church of Alexandria from the heretics who celebrate licentious agape rituals. I cited the first reference earlier:

Quote:

The Lord ministers all good and all help, both as man and as God: as God, forgiving our sins; and as man, training us not to sin. Man is therefore justly dear to God, since he is His workmanship. The other works of creation He made by the word of command alone, but man He framed by Himself, by His own hand, and breathed into him what was peculiar to Himself. What, then, was fashioned by Him, and after He likeness, either was created by God Himself as being desirable on its own account, or was formed as being desirable on account of something else. 'If, then, man is an object desirable for itself, then He who is good loved what is good, and the love-charm is within even in man, and is that very thing which is called the inspiration of God; but if man was a desirable object on account of something else, God had no other reason for creating him, than that unless he came into being, it was not possible for God to be a good Creator, or for man to arrive at the knowledge of God. For God would not have accomplished that on account of which man was created otherwise than by the creation of man; and what hidden power in willing God possessed, He carried fully out by the forth-putting of His might externally in the act of creating, receiving from man what He made man; and whom He had He saw, and what He wished that came to pass; and there is nothing which God cannot do. Man, then, whom God made, is desirable for himself, and that which is desirable on his account is allied to him to whom it is desirable on his account; and this, too, is acceptable and liked. But what is loveable, and is not also loved by Him? And man has been proved to be loveable; consequently man is loved by God. For how shall he not be loved for whose sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the Father's bosom, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant; the Lord Himself distinctly confessing and saying, "For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me;" and again, "And hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me?" What, then, the Master desires and declares, and how He is disposed in deed and word, how He commands what is to be done, and forbids the opposite, has already been shown. [Instructor 1.3]

Notice that 'brothers' are not being made here but man is being recreated as a superior being at the agape. The change then from this to 'brother making' clearly represents a watering down of the original heretical formula (i.e. that the original creation wasn't perfect).

Then in Clement's most complete citation of the material from John 17:18 - 26 the Alexandrian reinforces that again God first (re)creates man before 'loving him':

Quote:

But that God is good, all willingly admit; and that the same God is just, I require not many more words to prove, after adducing the evangelical utterance of the Lord; He speaks of Him as one, “That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world also may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given them; that they may be one, as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one.” [John. 17. 21–23]. God is one, and beyond the one and above the Monad itself. Wherefore also the particle “Thou,” having a demonstrative emphasis, points out God, who alone truly is, “who was, and is, and is to come,” in which three divisions of time the one name (ὀ ὤν); “who is,” has its place. And that He who alone is God is also alone and truly righteous, our Lord in the Gospel itself shall testify, saying “Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me: For Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee: but I have known Thee, and these have known that Thou hast sent Me. And I have declared to them Thy name, and will declare it.” [John 17:24 - 26]

Not only does this seem to reinforce the Marcionite notion two separate 'parts' to God - i.e. mercy and judgement but also the idea that the true God was unknown even to the Jews.

There is something beneath all of this. I think it is the elusive agape rite of the earliest Church.

Also notice that Clement references his gospel by the Marcionite title 'the Gospel of the Lord' and not 'the Gospel according to John' as we would expect.

andrewcriddle · 10-18-2011, 12:15 PM

The origins of the rite of adelphopoiesis may be connected to Sarabaite monasticism. See sybarite-sarabaites-monastic-pairs-in-byzantium

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 10-18-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm not sure what all this means.

I agree with everything you are saying. I still think there is something lurking beneath all of this that no one has figured out properly and it has something to do with the Letter to Theodore discovered at Mar Saba in 1958............

The Formula of "Secret Mark" = The Insertion of the Text into Mark

It is stated that the "Secret Mark" was characterised by the following quote
being inserted between verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10.

So let's quote Mark 10:34, then the described insertion and then Mark 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 10 34

And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insertion as described by Clement in the letter

And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan [Clement, the Letter to Theodore]

and then finally the text of Mark resumes ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 10 34 35 36

Mar 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.

Mar 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

Mar 10:37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

Firstly do you agree that this is the construction specified?

What might it all mean?

stephan huller · 10-18-2011, 07:15 PM

Here is a little more information on the Sarabites from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote:

They either continued like the early ascetics, to live in their own homes, or dwelt together in or near cities. They acknowledged no monastic superior, obeyed no definite rule, and disposed individually of the product of their manual labour.

St. Jerome speaks of them under the name of Remoboth, and John Cassian tells of their wide diffusion in Egypt and other lands. Both writers express a very unfavourable opinion concerning their conduct, and a reference to them in the Rule of St. Benedict is of similar import.

At a later date the name Sarabaites, the original meaning of which cannot be determined[verification needed], designated in a general way degenerate monks. The Rule of St. Benedict considered their nonadherence to church canon only to be exceeded by the Gyrovagues.

Interestingly the term sarabite has been determined to be Coptic in origin:

In derivation, the word ''sarabaite'' is a neutral Coptic term for a monastic collective or company. Far from being neutral, however, the Rule's sarabaite embodies classical Roman stereotypes of the East as soft, decadent, defiled, and depraved. The Rule uses taeter (''repulsive, noisome, loathsome''), a word applied in classical Latin to rotting corpses, overabundant libidos, or even hideous countenances, to depict the species sarabaite. (http://books.google.com/books?id=mnd...dos%2C&f=false)

Of course John Cassian while recognizing the term was Coptic insisted on giving a ridiculous etymology:

Quote:

The name sarabites is Coptic and they are so called because they cut themselves off from the monastic communities and take care of their own needs. They are descendants of that crowd I mentioned who prefer to put on the show of evangelic perfection rather than to take it up for what it really is. Their incentive to act in this way is envy, as well as the praises heaped upon those who prefer the utter poverty of Christ to all the riches of the world.

These men of puny spirit concern themselves with something requiring the highest virtue or else there was some compulsion upon them to approach this profession. They hurried to bear the name of being monks, though they lacked all urge to be really like them. They have no interest in monastic discipline. They do not submit to the direction of elders and they do not learn their instructions in how to overcome their own desires. They do not accept any of the correct and formative rules deriving from sensible guidance. Their withdrawal from the world is for the sake of public show and is something done before men’s eyes. Or else they remain in their own houses, enjoy the name of being monks, and continue to do what they always did. Or else they build cells for themselves, give them the title of monasteries, and then freely live in them as they choose. They never fall in with the gospel commands not to be concerned about one’s daily bread and not to be taken up with worldly affairs. This is something done, without any of the doubtings of lack of faith, by those who have liberated themselves from all the wealth of this world and who have submitted themselves to monastic rules to the extent that they do not admit to having any authority over themselves.

But these others, as I have said, run from monastic austerity. They live two or three to a cell. The last thing they want is to be guided by the concern and the authority of a father-superior. Their special concern is to be free of the yoke of elders, to be free to do what they themselves wish, to travel out, to wander wherever they please, to do what takes their fancy. In their activities they do more by day and by night than those who live in monasteries, though not from the same kind of faith and for the same purpose. They do this not with the intention of handing over the fruit of their work to be disposed of as their mentor thinks fit but to collect and to save money.

Observe the great difference between both kinds of monk.

Cenobites think nothing of the morrow. They present the fruit of their sweated labor as an offering that is most agreeable to God. But the others push the selfish concerns of their faithless souls not only into the coming day but over the length of many years. They think of God as being a liar or as one without resources, as someone unable and unwilling to live up to His promise of adequate food and clothing.

The ceaseless plea of the cenobites is to be bereft of everything and always to be poor. The others wish for an abundance of all goods. The cenobites strive in their daily work to go beyond what is required of them so that whatever remains over and beyond the needs of the monastery can, at the abbot’s discretion, be given to prisons or hostels, to hospitals or to the poor. The others work so that anything left after the satisfaction of daily greed can be available to their profligate wishes or saved to gratify avarice.

Finally I wish that the sarabites would make better use of the money which, with their bad objectives, they had accumulated for themselves. They come nowhere near the virtue or the perfection of the cenobites, who earn so much money for their monasteries, hand it over each day, continue to persevere in their utterly humble submissiveness; who stand away from deciding themselves what to do with what they have earned by the sweat of their brow and who, in this daily renunciation of what they have earned, manage to renew ceaselessly the zeal of their first act of renunciation. But these others are puffed up by the fact of giving something to the poor, and every day they slide headlong to disaster.

The cenobites continue to show the patience and the discipline with which they persevere in this profession which they once adopted. They never do what they themselves wish. Every day they are crucified to this world and are living martyrs, whereas, in the case of the others, their lukewarm spirit plunges them into damnation.

The numbers of both sorts of monk – cenobites and anchorites – are roughly equal in this province. As for the other provinces through which I had to travel because of matters connected with the Christian faith, I discovered that this third kind – the sarabites – flourished and indeed was almost the only kind to exist. In the days of Lucius, who was bishop of the Arian perfidy – this was in the reign of Valens – I brought help to our brothers, from Egypt and the Thebaid, who had been condemned to the mines of Pontus and of Armenia because of their loyalty to the Christian faith. In a few towns I saw very little monastic discipline and I could not find out if the name of anchorite had ever been heard among them. John Cassian, "Conferences," [from a conversation with Abba Piamun) trans. by Colm Luibheid, from the "Classics of Western Spirituality Series," (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), pp. 188 - 190]

If Andrew is right to point us in this direction there is no doubt that this practice developed from Alexandria. Lucius was the last Arian bishop of Alexandria (c. 378 CE). Nevertheless I think we see the practice already associated with earlier Arian bishops of Alexandria and moreover with Secret Mark.

I happened to notice that in Athanasius's propaganda against George the Arian bishop of Alexandria that the parallel reference to Jesus's love for the rich youth is developed exactly into this type of insulting reference:

Quote:

Again he transferred from Cappadocia to Milan one Auxentius an intruder rather than a Christian, whom he commanded to stay there, after he had banished for his piety towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the place, a godly man. But this person was as yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and unskilful in everything except impiety. And now one George, a Cappadocian, who was contractor of stores at Constantinople, and having embezzled all monies that he received, was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter Alexandria with military pomp, and supported by the authority of the General. Next, finding one Epictetus a novice, a bold young man, he loved him perceiving that he was ready for wickedness; and by his means he carries on his designs against those of the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. (History of the Arians Part 8)

The Greek for the 'he loved him' reference is ᾽Επικτητόν τινα…νεώτερον…ἠγάπησεν, ὁρῶν, κ. τ. λ. So in the account of the νεανίσκος, ῾Ο δὲ ᾽Ιησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ, ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν. Mark 10. 21. Epictetus is elsewhere called a ὑποκρίτης, which Montfaucon translated ‘stage-player.’ It is a question whether more than ‘actor’ is meant by it, alluding to the mockery of an ordination in which he seems to have taken part. The point of course is that not only is LGM 1 'right beside' this reference - the same word for love is used ἠγάπησεν making it absolutely certain that such a reference was indeed possible to misconstrue into a homosexual relationship.

It must be acknowledged that we are getting some insight into the original cult of St. Mark at his martyrium (which was the Arian stronghold in Alexandria, Arius himself having been presbyter of the church before being deposed by Alexander). George as Pope is the representative of Christ and Epictetus the disciple loved by Jesus who must clearly be St. Mark given the provenance of the tradition. It would certainly argue for a connection between Arianism and the native cult of St. Mark in Alexandria. It would be hard to argue against the idea that this pair had great significance in the native Alexandrian See and that something like Secret Mark - which augmented the importance of the rich youth - was firmly entrenched there.

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

10-17-2011, 04:17 PM	#16
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I'm not sure what all this means. Christians rejected most heterosexuality activity as well as homosexuality up until modern times, at least in theory. Concupiscence, including the sexual desire between married couples, is sin. So why not consecrate a friendship between two men who are not supposed to be having sex of any sort in any case? Of course, we know how realistic all the Christian sanctions on sexual activity have been - about as effective as abstinence-only education which tells American teenagers to just not have sex. And it's not just Christians. A few decades ago, the US was full of Indian gurus preaching brahmacharya, or celibacy, to American spiritual seekers. Almost all of them were discredited when it turned out that they had surveyed the devotees and picked out a vulnerable young woman to be their sexual partner. There is a comparison with dietary ascetics, who believe that it is virtuous or healthy to conquer their appetites for food, especially fat. They find themselves tempted to eat an entire carton of Hagen Dazs ice cream in secret, and yet never revise their anti-fat beliefs.

10-18-2011, 12:15 PM	#18
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	The origins of the rite of adelphopoiesis may be connected to Sarabaite monasticism. See sybarite-sarabaites-monastic-pairs-in-byzantium Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.