My friend's loathing of cats has inspired a little research on my part.
Many know that cats were highly revered in ancient Egypt, which started as a symbiotic relationship between cats, humans and nature. Cats killed the rats that lived, ate and pooped in the grain stored by the Nile river. Eventually, the cat came to be worshiped and the Goddess Bastet arose. Cats were highly regarded and mummified upon death. It was against the law to export cats, but eventually, the Greeks and Romans took cats to most of Europe to kill rat populations. They were also prized rodent catchers in China, India and Japan.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. Somewhere along the way, in the Middle Ages in Europe, the perception of cats changed. Cats were viewed as evil and thought of to have powers of black magic. People who had cats were suspect to witchcraft and wickedness and often put to death with their cats. Cats were hunted, tortured and sacrificed. Cats were sealed into walls of buildings and houses believing that this would bring good luck.
(Cats were viewed as evil, yet sealing one in the wall would bring good luck? That's some pretty backward assed thinking. I'm sure it smelled real good, too when the carcass began to rot.)
Well, it goes without saying that the rodent population soon got out of hand and a lot of people died from disease…karma.
I was thinking that as Christianity spread in Europe, that any link to Goddess worship was seen as evil. The cat was linked to the Egyptians and to the very Goddess, Bastet. I thought that the destruction of cats was, yet, another way to destroy anything to do with the natural world and nature religions. Then I read that Cardinal Richelieu, (1585 - 1642) liked cats and by the 1800's cats were in vogue again. That blows my hypothesis since a member of the Catholic Church was a noted cat lover.
Cardinal Richelieu did take out the Protestant Huguenots. That was a big bloody battle, but, hey, he did do a lot for the reputation of the cat.
06 February 2009
04 February 2009
On Righteousness
Here is the link to the work of my new best friend, Epiphanes as written by Clement of Alexandria.
These are not the direct words of Epiphanes, but fragments which have been further manipulated (I believe) by Clement of Alexandria. Though Clement was a Gnostic, he highly disapproved of the Gnostics openness with sexuality, I think in part because he may have held an unhealthy fear of the Christian Literalists of Rome and Alexandria who stressed a different type of morality, monogamy.
I think that Clement twisted the words of Epiphanes so the work and the Gnostics would be labeled as heretics since Clement's own "amailagam" (what ever this means, I haven't a clue...the closest interpretation I can gather is "poisoning") was later used to help "define the orthodox sexual morality of the church". (The Making of Fornication by Kathy L. Gaca pg. 273)
After reading that Clement "cites and denounces" ( by Gaca) On Justice in Stromaties, I am convinced that Clement, even though of Gnostic background, is on the side of the Literalists. He's a traitor.
According to Gaca, Clement and Epiphanes had conflicting views. Sex was a hot topic in the second century and was the main topic of conflict between the two men. Epiphanes leaned toward the views of Plato and the early Stoics which believed in communal sexual lifestyle (for if you recall, all are equal). Clement supported Cristian monogamy and expressed that monogamy was the very basis to which sexually active Christians must adhere. Both men truly believed that "their respective views of sexual morality and social order reflect the true spirit of Christianity".
Epiphanes died around the age of seventeen and was somewhat younger than Clement. Though very young, by modern standards, Epiphanes shows great wisdom. I can imagine that Clement wasn't too pleased by this young 'punk' who debated with his elders. I can imagine that Clement was not a fan of dissent, as well.
If none of Epiphanes' writings exist outside of Clement of Alexandria's own writings, and the two men had conflicting views, why on Earth would I trust Clement to give us an accurate portrayal of Epiphanes' writings?
I am sure, more now than ever, that Clement tried to destroy Epiphanes opinions over this conflict of sexual morality. Gaca discusses how the Christians that went on to be the "fathers" of the church sided with Clement. This is the side that men are heads of household and women are subordinate to their husbands and, subsequently, men. Epiphanes supported the egalitarian and communal sexual roles. The Church didn't like this and "tried to silence other Christian Platonists, like Epiphanes, who offered alternatives". The Christian Literalists could not have a split religious empire and, even today, doesn't allow for personal choice without the condemnation to hell.
Gaca writes about Epiphanes, "His egalitarian sexual principles thus have a genuine Christian motivation, even though they have been widely misrepresented since antiquity as the prurient fantasies of a libidinous heretic."
So, they did what they could to destroy him. How far did they go? He died so young, but it is not said how. Could foul play be involoved?
Critics of Epiphanes have gone so far as to label him a "nasty minded adolescent". (Footnote from The Making of Fornication pg. 276 footnote 6). This view has spread to The Columbia Encyclopedia which views Epiphanes and his father as "notoriously licentious".
It seems that the level of hatred started by Clement still courses literature. I find it humorous now that G.R.S. Mead (as mentioned in More on Epiphanes doubts the existence of Epiphanes.
Such hatred is not born of legend.
These are not the direct words of Epiphanes, but fragments which have been further manipulated (I believe) by Clement of Alexandria. Though Clement was a Gnostic, he highly disapproved of the Gnostics openness with sexuality, I think in part because he may have held an unhealthy fear of the Christian Literalists of Rome and Alexandria who stressed a different type of morality, monogamy.
I think that Clement twisted the words of Epiphanes so the work and the Gnostics would be labeled as heretics since Clement's own "amailagam" (what ever this means, I haven't a clue...the closest interpretation I can gather is "poisoning") was later used to help "define the orthodox sexual morality of the church". (The Making of Fornication by Kathy L. Gaca pg. 273)
After reading that Clement "cites and denounces" ( by Gaca) On Justice in Stromaties, I am convinced that Clement, even though of Gnostic background, is on the side of the Literalists. He's a traitor.
According to Gaca, Clement and Epiphanes had conflicting views. Sex was a hot topic in the second century and was the main topic of conflict between the two men. Epiphanes leaned toward the views of Plato and the early Stoics which believed in communal sexual lifestyle (for if you recall, all are equal). Clement supported Cristian monogamy and expressed that monogamy was the very basis to which sexually active Christians must adhere. Both men truly believed that "their respective views of sexual morality and social order reflect the true spirit of Christianity".
Epiphanes died around the age of seventeen and was somewhat younger than Clement. Though very young, by modern standards, Epiphanes shows great wisdom. I can imagine that Clement wasn't too pleased by this young 'punk' who debated with his elders. I can imagine that Clement was not a fan of dissent, as well.
If none of Epiphanes' writings exist outside of Clement of Alexandria's own writings, and the two men had conflicting views, why on Earth would I trust Clement to give us an accurate portrayal of Epiphanes' writings?
I am sure, more now than ever, that Clement tried to destroy Epiphanes opinions over this conflict of sexual morality. Gaca discusses how the Christians that went on to be the "fathers" of the church sided with Clement. This is the side that men are heads of household and women are subordinate to their husbands and, subsequently, men. Epiphanes supported the egalitarian and communal sexual roles. The Church didn't like this and "tried to silence other Christian Platonists, like Epiphanes, who offered alternatives". The Christian Literalists could not have a split religious empire and, even today, doesn't allow for personal choice without the condemnation to hell.
Gaca writes about Epiphanes, "His egalitarian sexual principles thus have a genuine Christian motivation, even though they have been widely misrepresented since antiquity as the prurient fantasies of a libidinous heretic."
So, they did what they could to destroy him. How far did they go? He died so young, but it is not said how. Could foul play be involoved?
Critics of Epiphanes have gone so far as to label him a "nasty minded adolescent". (Footnote from The Making of Fornication pg. 276 footnote 6). This view has spread to The Columbia Encyclopedia which views Epiphanes and his father as "notoriously licentious".
It seems that the level of hatred started by Clement still courses literature. I find it humorous now that G.R.S. Mead (as mentioned in More on Epiphanes doubts the existence of Epiphanes.
Such hatred is not born of legend.
03 February 2009
More on Epiphanes
Epiphanes. Who is he? Since reading about him yesterday, I need to know more. His work strikes me deep.
My first instinct is to note the obvious. The name Epiphanes sounds a lot like the word Epiphany. According to the Oxford Dictionary, Epiphany is when Jesus manifested himself to the gentiles. Bartleby.com says the same thing but adds that it is a Christian feast taking place on January 6 which celebrates this manifestation as "represented by the Magi."
Pause. So many thoughts come to me with this. Let me dig through the dusty closed trunks of my memory. I believe that the Magi are the wise men from the East who came to visit Jesus. This celebration marks the day the Magi actually arrived at the Manger. (I may have another lesson on Magi tomorrow…too much to go into now.)
The twelve days of Christmas are bookmarked by Christmas and the Epiphany.
When I look at the actual etymology of Epiphany, it is middle English form French from late Latin from Greek from the word manifestation; epiphainesthai. Epi means (Greek) at, on, to, upon, over, besides. Phanesthai, means to reveal or unveil. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: phainesthai (Greek) is 'to show itself' or 'to be in the light'.
Why do I find this intriguing? Because it shows roots between the Catholic/Christian faith and the Greeks whose own 'myths' stem from Egyptian beliefs. This isn't new news. I am constantly reminded in my research how many links there are between the Christian Literalists, the writers of the bible and creator of Christian tradition, and the Pagan Gnostics own writings and celebrations. The Literalists, who, destroyed the Gnostics.
Back to Epiphanes, the man.
Some of what I find of him comes from the writing of Nathaniel Lardner in The Works of Nathaniel Lardner in Five Volumes. Before I can continue my research of Epiphanes, though, I must know who this Nathaniel Lardner is.
Wikipedia states that he lived from 1684 to 24 July, 1768 and was an English theologian. He worked for the Presbyterian church. Well, that explains why he located Epiphanes and his father, Carpocrates under the chapter "History of Heretics." Lardner's research comes from "Clement of Alexandria and other ancient Authors". Hmm. Fascinating.
What Lardner found out for me, is this:
Epiphanes was the son of Carpocrates of Alexandria and Alexandria of Cephalene (Cephallenia). He died at 17 but not before writing an essay entitled On Justice and On Righteousness. Upon his death, he was honored as a god at Samē on the island of Cephalene in a new moon celebration. Allegedly, a stone temple with and alter, groves and museum were erected.
Lardner goes on to try and discredit Clement calling him a heathen for participating in such idolatrous worship of Epiphanes. He is sure the temple was built by heathens as well. He states that the Epiphanes to whom the credit was given was really some other person and not Epiphanes son of Carpocrates, "the Christian heretic". He thinks this because there is not hardly any mention of Epiphanes in historic literature by other 'ancient' authors. He also states that it was not customary for Christians to build temples in the "former part of the second century, in which time Epiphanes is supposed to have died". (Yet, he thinks, surely the temple "must have been raised by heathens".)
Another writer, G.R.S. Mead even doubts the existence of Epiphanes stating it is an extraordinary legend created by Clement of Alexandria. He reveals that "the festival at Samē was in honour of the moon-god, and accompanied with licentious rites. It was called the Epiphany (τὰ Ἐπιφάνια) in honour of Epiphanes (ὁ Ἐπιφανής), the "newly-appearing one," the new moon". Mead goes on to say that Clement was badly confused by the similarity in name.
But who knows.
There is no trace of this work only fragmented lines preserved by, ironically, Clement of Alexandria (circa 160-215).
Taken from the Dictionary of African Christian Biography:
Epiphanes viewed the righteousness of God to be a sharing along with equality.
"But the implication of such "egalitarianism" could include sexual promiscuity, which Clement criticized, precisely for the libertarian notion of sharing wives. Epiphanes advocated a community of goods, going so far as to demand that women should like all other property be common to all."
In Jesus and the Lost Goddess, the authors talk about the Gnostics seeing "sexuality as a celebration of the union of God and Goddess". It is said that nudity may have been practiced as a sacrament and ritual intercourse may have existed. This is what may have led to Gnostics being portrayed as immoral.
According to the authors of Jesus and the Lost Goddess, Epiphanes wrote, "God created the delights of love equally for all humankind. But men have repudiated the very thing which is the source of their existence."
I don't know if I am any closer to knowing who Epiphanes may or may not have been. Only more research can tell.
That's my intuitive opinion inspired research for today.
My first instinct is to note the obvious. The name Epiphanes sounds a lot like the word Epiphany. According to the Oxford Dictionary, Epiphany is when Jesus manifested himself to the gentiles. Bartleby.com says the same thing but adds that it is a Christian feast taking place on January 6 which celebrates this manifestation as "represented by the Magi."
Pause. So many thoughts come to me with this. Let me dig through the dusty closed trunks of my memory. I believe that the Magi are the wise men from the East who came to visit Jesus. This celebration marks the day the Magi actually arrived at the Manger. (I may have another lesson on Magi tomorrow…too much to go into now.)
The twelve days of Christmas are bookmarked by Christmas and the Epiphany.
When I look at the actual etymology of Epiphany, it is middle English form French from late Latin from Greek from the word manifestation; epiphainesthai. Epi means (Greek) at, on, to, upon, over, besides. Phanesthai, means to reveal or unveil. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: phainesthai (Greek) is 'to show itself' or 'to be in the light'.
Why do I find this intriguing? Because it shows roots between the Catholic/Christian faith and the Greeks whose own 'myths' stem from Egyptian beliefs. This isn't new news. I am constantly reminded in my research how many links there are between the Christian Literalists, the writers of the bible and creator of Christian tradition, and the Pagan Gnostics own writings and celebrations. The Literalists, who, destroyed the Gnostics.
Back to Epiphanes, the man.
Some of what I find of him comes from the writing of Nathaniel Lardner in The Works of Nathaniel Lardner in Five Volumes. Before I can continue my research of Epiphanes, though, I must know who this Nathaniel Lardner is.
Wikipedia states that he lived from 1684 to 24 July, 1768 and was an English theologian. He worked for the Presbyterian church. Well, that explains why he located Epiphanes and his father, Carpocrates under the chapter "History of Heretics." Lardner's research comes from "Clement of Alexandria and other ancient Authors". Hmm. Fascinating.
What Lardner found out for me, is this:
Epiphanes was the son of Carpocrates of Alexandria and Alexandria of Cephalene (Cephallenia). He died at 17 but not before writing an essay entitled On Justice and On Righteousness. Upon his death, he was honored as a god at Samē on the island of Cephalene in a new moon celebration. Allegedly, a stone temple with and alter, groves and museum were erected.
Lardner goes on to try and discredit Clement calling him a heathen for participating in such idolatrous worship of Epiphanes. He is sure the temple was built by heathens as well. He states that the Epiphanes to whom the credit was given was really some other person and not Epiphanes son of Carpocrates, "the Christian heretic". He thinks this because there is not hardly any mention of Epiphanes in historic literature by other 'ancient' authors. He also states that it was not customary for Christians to build temples in the "former part of the second century, in which time Epiphanes is supposed to have died". (Yet, he thinks, surely the temple "must have been raised by heathens".)
Another writer, G.R.S. Mead even doubts the existence of Epiphanes stating it is an extraordinary legend created by Clement of Alexandria. He reveals that "the festival at Samē was in honour of the moon-god, and accompanied with licentious rites. It was called the Epiphany (τὰ Ἐπιφάνια) in honour of Epiphanes (ὁ Ἐπιφανής), the "newly-appearing one," the new moon". Mead goes on to say that Clement was badly confused by the similarity in name.
But who knows.
There is no trace of this work only fragmented lines preserved by, ironically, Clement of Alexandria (circa 160-215).
Taken from the Dictionary of African Christian Biography:
Epiphanes viewed the righteousness of God to be a sharing along with equality.
"But the implication of such "egalitarianism" could include sexual promiscuity, which Clement criticized, precisely for the libertarian notion of sharing wives. Epiphanes advocated a community of goods, going so far as to demand that women should like all other property be common to all."
In Jesus and the Lost Goddess, the authors talk about the Gnostics seeing "sexuality as a celebration of the union of God and Goddess". It is said that nudity may have been practiced as a sacrament and ritual intercourse may have existed. This is what may have led to Gnostics being portrayed as immoral.
According to the authors of Jesus and the Lost Goddess, Epiphanes wrote, "God created the delights of love equally for all humankind. But men have repudiated the very thing which is the source of their existence."
I don't know if I am any closer to knowing who Epiphanes may or may not have been. Only more research can tell.
That's my intuitive opinion inspired research for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)