There still might be some truth to it. It represents our earliest detailed commentary on Clement's Stromata. Consider this unrecognized reference to the Carpocratians.
As such Theodoret's idea of Prodicus as a latter day but contemporary Carpocratian for Clement is quite instructive. Consider the aforementioned reference to the "noble" Carpocratians. It could be a reference to Prodicus. Let's read the passage in context:
Theodoret references the first part of the passage above but not the second. In the second part the "writings called Magius" (Ξάνθος δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις Μαγικοῖς) are referenced. Clearly the Carpocratians used Plato. But why does Clement appeal to the Persian religious writings or accounts of the religious practices of the Persians? Clearly it is because the "noble Gnostic" whom he met appealed to the writings of the Persians. Interestingly Clement makes clear that this contemporary was Prodicus elsewhere:
To this end, I think that the Letter to Theodore's appeal to Jude against a group of Carpocratians who live in a subsequent age to Carpocrates's plunder of the secret gospel of Mark is not all that crazy either. It's opening line:
The only heretic that Clement grants the title of γενναῖος = highborn, noble is Carpocrates:οἶδα ἐγὼ αἱρέσει τινὶ ἐντυχών, καὶ ὁ ταύτης προϊστάμενος διὰ τῆς χρήσεως ἔφασκεν τῆς ἡδονῆς ἡδονῇ μάχεσθαι, αὐτομολῶν πρὸς ἡδονὴν διὰ προσποιητοῦ μάχης ὁ γενναῖος οὗτος γνωστικός 2.20.117.6 (ἔφασκε γὰρ δὴ αὑτὸν καὶ γνωστικὸν εἶναι), ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ μέγα ἔλεγεν τὸ ἀπέχεσθαι ἡδονῆς μὴ πεπειραμένον, ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ γενόμενον μὴ κρα2.20.118.1 τεῖσθαι, ὅθεν γυμνάζεσθαι δι' αὐτῆς ἐν αὐτῇ. ἐλάνθανεν δὲ ἑαυτὸν 2.20.118.2 κατασοφιζόμενος ὁ ἄθλιος τῇ φιληδόνῳ τέχνῃ. ταύτῃ δηλονότι τῇ δόξῃ καὶ Ἀρίστιππος ὁ Κυρηναῖος προσέβαλλεν τοῦ τὴν ἀλήθειαν αὐχοῦντος σοφιστοῦ. ὀνειδιζόμενος γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ συνεχῶς ὁμιλεῖν τῇ ἑταίρᾳ τῇ Κορινθίᾳ, ἔχω γὰρ ἔλεγεν Λαΐδα καὶ οὐκ ἔχομαι ὑπ' 2.20.118.3 αὐτῆς. τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱ φάσκοντες ἑαυτοὺς Νικολάῳ ἕπεσθαι, ἀπομνημόνευμά τι τἀνδρὸς φέροντες ἐκ παρατροπῆς τὸ δεῖν πα2.20.118.4 ραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί. ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν γενναῖος κολούειν δεῖν ἐδήλου τάς τε ἡδονὰς τάς τε ἐπιθυμίας καὶ τῇ ἀσκήσει ταύτῃ καταμαραίνειν τὰς 2.20.118.5 τῆς σαρκὸς ὁρμάς τε καὶ ἐπιθέσεις. οἳ δὲ εἰς ἡδονὴν τράγων δίκην ἐκχυθέντες, οἷον ἐφυβρίζοντες τῷ σώματι, καθηδυπαθοῦσιν, οὐκ εἰδότες ὅτι τὸ μὲν ῥακοῦται φύσει ῥευστὸν ὄν, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ αὐτῶν ἐν βορβόρῳ κακίας κατορώρυκται, δόγμα ἡδονῆς αὐτῆς, οὐχὶ δὲ ἀνδρὸς ἀποστο2.20.118.6 λικοῦ μεταδιωκόντων.
I know, having encountered a certain heresy, and the one leading it was claiming through the use of pleasure to fight pleasure with pleasure, defecting to pleasure through a feigned battle. This noble Gnostic (for he was claiming to be a Gnostic) said that abstaining from pleasure without having experienced it was not significant, but that one must not be overcome by it while in it, hence one must train through it within it. The wretched man, using his love of pleasure as a pretext, was deceiving himself. Obviously, Aristippus of Cyrene also attacked this opinion of the boasting sophist of truth. For when reproached for continually associating with the Corinthian courtesan, he said, 'I have Laïs, but I am not possessed by her.'
Those who claim to follow Nicolaus similarly distort his teaching, saying that it is necessary to use the body in every way. But the noble man indicated that it was necessary to curb both pleasures and desires, and through such exercise to subdue the impulses and urges of the flesh. However, those who, like goats, are wantonly poured out into pleasure, revel in their bodies, not realizing that their garment, being naturally perishable, is being soiled, while their soul is buried in the mire of vice, pursuing a doctrine of pleasure itself, not that of an apostolic man.
Of course Carpocrates (whoever or whatever he was) seems to have been born much earlier in the second century. But something very similar is said of Prodicus in his one explicit mention in Book Three:Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν οἱ γενναῖοι Καρποκρατιανοὶ δογματίζουσι
In no uncertain terms then the followers of Prodicus is described as having "good birth" (εὐγενείᾳ) and as false gnostics who engage in pleasure seeking activities. They might well be the latter day Carpocratians described earlier in Book Three.Similar doctrines are expressed by Prodicus’ school, who falsely claim the name of Gnostics for themselves, calling themselves natural sons of the primal god. They make wrong use of their high birth (εὐγενείᾳ) and freedom to live as they will. What they will is a life of pleasure-loving, having come to the conclusion that they are inferior to none, being lords of the sabbath, and born princes superior to all humankind. For a king, they say, there is no written law. In the first place, 101 they do not do all they want; many things will stand in the way of their desires and efforts. Further, what they do do, they do not as kings but as slaves liable to flogging; they are in fear of discovery in their secret adulteries; they are evading condemnation; they are afraid of punishment. (3) How can a combination of immoderation and dirty language be freedom? “Everyone who sins is a slave,” says the Apostle. 102 31(1) How can the man who has given himself over to every lust be a citizen according to the Law of God when the Lord has declared, “I say, you shall not lust”?
As such Theodoret's idea of Prodicus as a latter day but contemporary Carpocratian for Clement is quite instructive. Consider the aforementioned reference to the "noble" Carpocratians. It could be a reference to Prodicus. Let's read the passage in context:
Theodoret took this passage to mean that Prodicus developed the heresy of the Carpocratians towards nudism. The implication being that Clement is here referring not to "pure" Carpocratianism but to a later offshoot where - pardon the reference - Christians gathered as "nakeds with naked."And these things the noble Carpocratians teach. It is said that they and some other zealots of similar evils gather at their feasts (for I would not call their gathering a love feast), men and women alike, and after satisfying themselves (as they say, 'in fullness is Venus'), they cast aside their shame and their whorish justice, extinguish the lamp's light, and mix together however they wish with whomever they wish. Practicing such 'love' and communion, the next day, they demand from the women they desire adherence to the Carpocratian law (for it is not lawful to call it divine law). I believe such practices of Carpocrates should be legislated to the lusts of dogs, pigs, and goats.
3.2.10.2. It seems to me that they have also misheard Plato in the Republic, where he says that women should be common to all, meaning those before marriage for those who are going to ask, just as the theater is common to those watching, but once each one has taken one, 3.2.11.1. she is no longer common but married. Xanthus, in the so-called Magius (Ξάνθος δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις Μαγικοῖς), says that the Magi mix with their mothers, daughters, and sisters, and that it is lawful to have common women not by force or secretly, but with the consent of both parties. 3.2.11.2. When one wishes to marry the other's wife. Regarding these and similar sects, I believe Jude spoke prophetically in his epistle: 'In the same way these dreamers (for they do not truly engage with reality) even speak boastful things with their mouths.'
Theodoret references the first part of the passage above but not the second. In the second part the "writings called Magius" (Ξάνθος δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις Μαγικοῖς) are referenced. Clearly the Carpocratians used Plato. But why does Clement appeal to the Persian religious writings or accounts of the religious practices of the Persians? Clearly it is because the "noble Gnostic" whom he met appealed to the writings of the Persians. Interestingly Clement makes clear that this contemporary was Prodicus elsewhere:
At the very least we have uncovered the breadcrumbs by which Theodoret identified Prodicus as a latter day Carpocratian who introduced ritual nudity into the Church. He was identified as the "noble Gnostic" who lived at the time of Clement who used or appealed to Persian religious writings hence Clement's own appeal to Xanthus.Zoroaster the Persian Magus was admired by Pythagoras, and those who follow the sect of Prodicus boast that they possess the secret books of this man.
Ζωροάστρην δὲ τὸν Μάγον τὸν Πέρσην ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐζήλωσεν, <καὶ> βίβλους ἀποκρύφους τἀνδρὸς τοῦδε οἱ τὴν Προδίκου μετιόντες αἵρεσιν αὐχοῦσι κεκτῆσθαι. [Strom 1.15.70.1]
To this end, I think that the Letter to Theodore's appeal to Jude against a group of Carpocratians who live in a subsequent age to Carpocrates's plunder of the secret gospel of Mark is not all that crazy either. It's opening line:
By the end of the letter, we know that Theodore's original correspondence made reference to their "nakeds with naked doctrine" which prompts these words. Rather than being an all male homosexual orgy this is clearly a heterosexual orgy where women are shared in common, the same situation which prompts Clement's similar citation of Jude in the Third Book of the Stromata:You have done well to silence the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the prophesied wandering stars, who stray from the narrow path of the commandments into the boundless abyss of carnal and corporeal sins. For being puffed up with knowledge, as they say, of the deep things of Satan, they unknowingly cast themselves into the darkness of falsehood and, boasting of being free, have become slaves of base desires.
Yes it can be argued that Morton Smith or a Byzantine copyist knew Theodoret and manufactured a letter of similar structure to the early section of Book Three. I don't think this is likely. I think the letter is genuine.And these things the noble Carpocratians teach. It is said that they and some other zealots of similar evils gather at their feasts (for I would not call their gathering a love feast), men and women alike, and after satisfying themselves (as they say, 'in fullness is Venus'), they cast aside their shame and their whorish justice, extinguish the lamp's light, and mix together however they wish with whomever they wish. Practicing such 'love' and communion, the next day, they demand from the women they desire adherence to the Carpocratian law (for it is not lawful to call it divine law). I believe such practices of Carpocrates should be legislated to the lusts of dogs, pigs, and goats.
3.2.10.2. It seems to me that they have also misheard Plato in the Republic, where he says that women should be common to all, meaning those before marriage for those who are going to ask, just as the theater is common to those watching, but once each one has taken one, 3.2.11.1. she is no longer common but married. Xanthus, in the so-called Magius (Ξάνθος δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις Μαγικοῖς), says that the Magi mix with their mothers, daughters, and sisters, and that it is lawful to have common women not by force or secretly, but with the consent of both parties. 3.2.11.2.When one wishes to marry the other's wife. Regarding these and similar sects, I believe Jude spoke prophetically in his epistle: 'In the same way these dreamers (for they do not truly engage with reality) even speak boastful things with their mouths.
Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Sun Jun 02, 2024 6:19 am