stephan huller

Hi Andrew,

There can be no doubt that even in English not every use of the term 'unnatural' would necessarily refer to homosexuality. But in this particular case given the fact that Strom 7.16 has (as I count it) forty four common points of reference or themes (some repeated many times in the letter) I would argue that the use of the term 'unnatural' here is an allusion to the parallel idea in the Mar Saba letter.

I will try and reproduce the table here sometime tomorrow to demonstrate this. For the moment we can at least agree that it is the Carpocratians who are here being described as having their souls "darkened by unnatural dogmas (τοῖς παρὰ φύσιν θολωθεῖσα δόγμασιν) cannot perceive distinctly the light of truth, but even overlooks what is before it."

It is worth noting that for the time being at least the sexually charged Agape of the heretics begins with 'darkness' as well:

I know you see this as proof of only hetrosexual rites (something like the Playboy mansion) where as I see this as a broader reference to an orgy where anything goes and men share their bodies as well as their property (i.e. the women) with each other (even Hiugh Hefner was ultimately engaging in homosexual sex at his 'orgies' in the seventies - it's just what happens when men and women are side by side naked in the dark.

My point in bringing this up is that the 'agape' of the Carpocratians was just mentioned a little earlier in Strom 7.16. It is still on the mind of Clement and the 'darkening' of the soul (via 'disordered' eyes) is all an allusion to the carnality of the sect members.

More to follow ...

If anyone can give me some pointers on how to establish two texts side by side here it would be appreciated.

Toto

You can post two texts side by side by putting them in a table.

stephan huller

Where's the table? I feel like I am my mother trying to use an Ipad.

Toto

There's a thread on tables here

The simplest form:

[table="head"]head col1|head col2
text1 |text2
[/table]
gives

head col1	head col2
text1	text2

mountainman

Did the Gnostics hate Christianity?

In addition to earlier comments above, there is a second gnostic text that makes reference to Jesus's kissing activities with James. Have a look at the Second Apocalypse of James. I think these are just common satirical treatments of the Jesus, by UNBELIEVERS.

stephan huller

Okay I will develop the table tomorrow. Another interesting point is that if we both agree that the Carpocratians are described as having their souls corrupted with 'unnaturalness' in Strom 7.16, it is interesting to go back to the agape ritual of Strom. 3 and realize that the whole discussion here is about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural' with regards to sexual relations (which is why the text was not translated into English originally).

The discussion begins with a citation from Isidore's Ethics about this very subject:

The reference to the Carpocratian agape immediately follows obviously representing one extreme of Christian sexual morals.

Clement begins his discussion by saying:

The long discussion of the Carpocratians which follows interesting focuses on the question of their interpretation of a commandment from Jesus from a non-ganonical gospel shared by the Carpocratians and the Alexandrian where he says 'do not lust.' Clement's argument is that because the Carpocratians do not admit the Law and the prophets into their interpretation they misunderstand what lust means and thus fall into lust themselves allow for sexual relations in the agape.

The Carpocratians clearly allow for sexual desire (ἀφροδίσια) in their agape and Aphrodite is thus deliberately referenced to tie their practices to what was just cited:

Clearly then Clement's point isn't just that the Carpocratians engage in ἀφροδίσια but that what is natural (clearly ἀφροδίσια is 'natural') leads to things and practices which are unnatural like the sharing of wives and greater sexual abominations (copulations with animals). This becomes clear a little later where Aphrodite is again referenced with respect to the Carpocratians.

After bringing forward the Carpocratians as one end of the spectrum of Christian attitudes toward sexuality, the Marcionites are brought forward in Strom 3.3 as arguing that all sex is natural but evil. Clement goes back to the Carpocratians in Strom 3.4 and emphasizes that they derive their doctrines from an apocryphal text and distinguishes them as much worse that the Nicolatians (whose immorality was quite limited). After mentioning the Carpocratians by name he says:

My point is clearly that while the original conversation about the agape seems only to deal with the topic of the sharing of women on a macroscopic level, the example of the Carpocratian agape is situated in a greater discussion of what is natural and unnatural with respect to sexual relations.

Interesting the word 'unnatural' comes up once in this discussion when the example of the Indian gymnopsophists who view sex itself as unnatural:

The point then is that if we are to put the discussion of the Carpocratian agape and their emphasis that 'all things should be shared in common' (based on a reading of Mark 10.17 - 31 that becomes the basis for a second discussion in Quis Dives Salvetur) which includes wives, clearly Clement and the Carpocratians agree that sex is 'natural.'

When the Carpocratian agape is again referenced in Strom 7.16 and is immediately followed by a reference to the 'unnaturalness' that infects their souls it clearly can only be interpreted as being a result of their agape being an ἀφροδίσια (a term which does not limit itself to sexual licentiousness but literally means 'like the festival of Aphrodite' where drinking, eating and licentiousness abounded). In other words, ALL the references to 'corrupt agapes' in Clement - Paed 1.1 where overeating abounds, Strom 3.2 where sex abounds, and Strom 7.16 where too much drinking abounds - all make the point that what starts as 'natural' becomes perverted into something excessive and the original nature of the festival is now corrupted.

I don't think you can subtract the 'παρὰ φύσιν' reference in Strom 7.16 from the agape reference which precedes it. In other words, that the drinking which leads to a convival atmosphere in the Carpocratian agape leads directly to the 'disordered eyes' of the corrupt souls which have become 'παρὰ φύσιν.' Again the original reference:

I have to go into a meeting but in my next post I will show that the context is the same discussion as which is in to Theodore. But it is enough to note for the moment that there is a consistent understanding of the Carpocratian agape being rooted in 'natural' which leads to practices which are 'against nature' ('παρὰ φύσιν).

stephan huller

Perhaps because I love to delve into things which have a very low probability of being solved it is interesting that the heretics Tertullian rails against in De Baptismo apply 'give to everyone who asks' to baptism. The point - perhaps - is that this might be indicative of Clement exaggerating the sexual element. The wontonness here might be related to indiscrimately inviting people to the agape (a sacrament shared by the communities). The original reference in Clement again:

And now the parallel reference in Tertullian, the example of a 'rash' heretical interest in promoting women to administer the sacraments (and thus a contrast with the virtuous woman in Strom 3) leads the following discussion:

My point here is that the accounts are likely related but Clement - strangely - emphasizes the lasciviousness character of the request, something which I think is clearly an exaggeration. I think the Carpocratians are really being accused of operating independently of the authority of the episcopal chair of Alexandria. This 'freedom' and desire to spread the practices of the Church are being equated with sexual wontonness deliberately on Clement's part - because he really has no other way of condemning the sect (other than admitting that their tradition is related to the Alexandrian church).

andrewcriddle

Are all the 'corrupt agapes' referring to the same type of event ?

Paed 1.1 seems to be referring to a more or less orthodox gathering which Clement condemns for the over indulgence involved.

Strom 3.2 is clearly referring to a heretical gathering.

Strom 7.16 seems IMHO to resemble Paed 1.1 rather than Strom 3.2 (Gluttony rather than sex). If so, then the Carpocratians may not be the heretics Clement is concerned with in this passage.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

That is a good question, Andrew and it is one which speaks to a central problem in the Patristic literature - are the uncanny similarities and overlaps between the descriptions of sects such as the Marcosians and the Carpocratians attestations of separate phenomena or the same phenomena through differing original witnesses (and later misrepresented or misunderstood as independent 'sects').

I think everyone will agree that the earliest report about the Carpocratians was the hypomnemata attributed to Hegesippus by Eusebius. Whether or not Clement had access to this report is up for grabs. I think the reference to the chronicle of 'Josephus the Jew' is the same report and Hegesippus is a corruption of Josephus but we'll leave that an open question.

The number of 'witnesses' to this hypomnemata have to include Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius but also Celsus in my mind. Then the question is which is the correct name for the sect - are they the 'Carpocratians' or the 'Harpocratians'? I think the latter but then it is difficult to explain the choice of the former in every Patristic writer.

To the same end Clement's reports about the agape are problematic because he only once chooses to identify a specific sect associated with the sacramentum (Pliny Letter 72) - the Carpocratians. Was Clement aware of many different heretical groups all of whom had corrupt agapes? If he does he doesn't say so. Who are the other candidates for the (a) agapes with too much food and (c) too much drinking? It is worth noting that in Stromata 3 he says the Nicolatians were limited in their sinfulness when compared with the Carpocratians? It can't be the Marcionites. The Valentinians are identified as over-emphasizing the 'spiritual' aspect of things. He never mentions the Marcosians. Who is left then?

I think the key to solving everything is to acknowledge that the term ἀφροδίσια is incorrectly translated as mere 'sexual pleasure' and is broad enough to encompass (a) and (c). Foucault defines aphrodisia are “the acts, gestures, and contacts that produce a certain form of pleasure.” Aphrodisia are bodily pleasures that are related with specific actions like eating, drinking, and having sex.

For Foucault, aphrodisia are considered both positive and negative. They are positive since they are natural and necessary, i.e. everyone must eat, drink, and reproduce—nature encourages animals to eat, drink, and procreate by making these activities immensely pleasurable. Nonetheless, bodily pleasures also had a negative quality, which required for their delimitation. The main reason for this was that the Greeks deemed aphrodisia as possessing an “inferior character” for they “were common to animals and men,” “mixed with privation and suffering,” and “depended on the body and its necessities.”

However, it was more than the inferior quality of aphrodisia that rendered them the point of ethical concern. Two major problems emerge: the predicament of excessiveness, and the horror of passivity. According to Foucault, excessiveness and passivity in the Greek épistémè are “[f]or a man…the two main forms of immorality.” Because these two problems were the major forms of immorality, and because both were linked to and associated with bodily pleasures, aphrodisia is the ethical substance of Greek ethics. Excessiveness is a “lack of self-restraint with regard to pleasure.” Considering that pleasures obtained in aphrodisiac activity are high, one begins to pursue pleasure beyond one’s natural needs that cause the desire for the activity to begin with. This is the problem of intemperance, which is characterized by gluttony, drunkenness, and nymphomania, all of which are excessive performances of otherwise natural and necessary bodily processes. Foucault asserts that “the primary dividing line laid down by moral judgment in the area of sexual behavior was not prescribed by the nature of the act…but by the activity and its quantitative gradations.”

With that said the connection of the Carpocratians to ἀφροδίσια in Stromata 3 makes it certain that they are the group in Paed 1.1 and Strom 7.16. In other words, when we look at Clement's original language and the line by line analysis I provided of the argument in Stromata 3 (see above) there can be no doubt that Clement is accusing the Carpocratians of something very specific which carries over into the Letter to Theodore.

andrewcriddle

Minor correction

Paed 1.1 should be Paed 2.1 ie the discussion about self-indulgent Agapes is in the first chapter of the second book of the Pedagogue not the first chapter of the first book.

Andrew Criddle