Posts by Don

"most modern scholars hold that [the book of Matthew] was written in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time." (Wikipedia)

So, written 75 to 100 CE.

Both things could technically be true: dogs and swine as regular literary metaphor; it's use as a stand in for Cynics and Epicureans depending on the demographics where the writer was living. I'm skeptical that Jesus would have used it to refer to the philosophical schools since I'm not sure there would be many from those two schools in Galilee and Jerusalem at his time. But I'm still intrigued by this line of inquiry.

Fellows are the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar who were/are scholars who met in the 1970s/80s(?) to literally vote on whether Jesus said what the gospels say he said.

Grey means it was a toss up. Red would mean they agreed Jesus said it. Black, he didn't. (I think there is a pink category, too: red, pink, grey, black.

Here's the commentary on those verses from the Jesus Seminar 's The Five Gospels:

The five Gospels : the search for the authentic words of Jesus : new translation and commentary : Funk, Robert Walter, 1926-2005 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A Polebridge Press book.

archive.org

(Read with free account)

The saying is preserved in Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas. Here the end of that section in the book:

Of course, there's only so many ways to say "pig" in Latin, but fwiw:

Latin for reference: Matthew 7:6: 6 Nolite dare sanctum canibus: neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi dirumpant vos.

Horace for reference:

Latin
inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras
omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum:
grata superveniet quae non sperabitur hora.
me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises
cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum.

English (Loeb Classics)

Amid hopes and cares, amid fears and passions,
believe that every day that has dawned is your last.
Welcome will come to you another hour unhoped for.
As for me, when you want a laugh, you will find me in fine fettle,
fat and sleek, a hog from Epicurus’s herd.

Also, from Wikipedia as a start (emphasis added):

Cynicism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cynicism gradually declined in importance after the 3rd century BC, but it experienced a revival with the rise of the Roman Empire in the 1st century. Cynics could be found begging and preaching throughout the cities of the empire, and similar ascetic and rhetorical ideas appeared in early Christianity.

I'm intrigued! I'll admit that I never made that connection, and possibly both animals were seen as unclean... But the juxtaposition of dogs and swine is too juicy to pass up digging into a little.

The phrase comes from Matthew 7:6: μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων μήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (NRSVue)

χοῖρος, χοιρου, ὁ, from Homer down, a swine: plural, Matthew 7:6; Matthew 8:30,(31),32; Mark 5:11-13, 14 Rec.,(16); Luke 8:32; Luke 15:15f. (Not found in the O. T.)

So, the only other uses of χοιρος are Jesus casting demons into swine and the prodigal son eating what swine eat when he was starving from the famine.

But that juxtaposition in "Jesus'" words in Matthew does intrigue me, could it be Cynics and Epicureans?? The part about tearing you to pieces reminds me of Acts 17.

Acts 17 :: King James Version (KJV)

Acts 17 - Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth…

www.blueletterbible.org

Act 17:18 - Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection....

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Questions for me:

Did the Jesus Seminar vote that Jesus said Matthew 7:6?

Were the Cynics and Epicureans active when and where Matthew was written?

What word did Horace use for "a pig in Epicurus' sty" in Latin? Is that the one in the Vulgate?

Have any scholars gone this route with Matthew 7:6?

Great question, Al-Hakiim von Grof !

Thanks for the kind comments on my presentation as well as the thought-provoking commentary in your post. Food for thought (pun fully intended )

And for January/Gamelion 20, new discoveries in Pompeii... Or as I like to think of it, that city beside Herculaneum...

BBC Two - Pompeii: The New Dig, House of Treasures

At the biggest dig in a generation, archaeologists strike gold in a lavish Pompeiian home.

www.bbc.co.uk

And today is one of those rare occurrences when the ancient Greek calendar commemoration of Epicurus' birthday on the 20th of Gamelion also coincides with the modern Gregorian calendar date of January 20!!

Note: It is well nigh impossible to fully synchronize the ancient and modern calendars for a myriad of reasons. However, the reckoning I'm using - and recommend - is that used by Hellenion: https://www.hellenion.org/calendar/

(And, yes, that image above is edited from a screenshot from my phone. Yes, I have the Hellenion calendar on my Google calendar as an option. Yes, I am a nerd... And proud of it )

PS: Oh, and in reading my Substack subscriptions, I see Hiram Crespo uses the same calendar:

Happy Hegemon Day: the Five Lucretian Hymns to the Hegemon

Happy Eikas and Welcome to year 2,366 of Epicurus!

open.substack.com

I'm sold...

https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/879642283

That's the WorldCat link if anyone wants to borrow from their public library.

Welcome aboard!

You might be interested in this thread:

Post

RE: 2022 Epicurus vs Buddhism Compare and Contrast Thread

Of the ancient Indian philosophies of Ājīvika, Ajñana, Buddhism, Chārvāka, Jainism, Mīmāṁsā, Nyāya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Vedanta, and Yoga, we'll find the closest companion to Epicureanism in Chārvāka. Early Buddhism is most closely related to the Indian school of Ajñana, from which Pyrrhonism developed, so, in general, I don't think that comparisons between early Buddhism and Epicurean philosophy are helpful. They are dissimilar and historically unrelated.

In terms of physics, Epicureanism…

Eikadistes

January 27, 2022 at 10:02 PM

Quote from Cassius

There's a lot more connection to Epicurus in that period than we've been led to believe.

The French Enlightenment thinkers and earlier French writers are also a fascinating piece of that history, as Charles has pointed out in the past, including LaMettrie, Voltaire, Gassendi, et al.

LOL Al-Hakiim von Grof , you didn't expect so much homework, did you?

Seriously though, just feel free to dig in as deeply and as quickly as you find pleasurable! There's a welcoming group of people here to bounce ideas off of, to ask questions of, and to explore the philosophy with.

Welcome aboard, Al-Hakiim von Grof !

You've hit on a fascinating topic. It seems undeniable to me that Jefferson's Epicurean leanings influenced his political thought. However, the final draft of the Declaration went through a committee as well as revisions from the whole Congress before being accepted. A large part of Jefferson's original draft remained intact through the process, but there were significant changes made nonetheless. Here's a history of the creation of the Declaration from the US National Archives:

The Declaration of Independence: A History

Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between…

www.archives.gov

There's also this from Monticello stating that "pursuit of happiness" could have clearly been influenced by George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights"

Pursuit of Happiness

Find out what we know about what Thomas Jefferson meant by "pursuit of happiness".

www.monticello.org

There's also

Pursuit of Happiness - Creating the Declaration of Independence - Creating the United States | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Historian Peter Moore appears to have written an entire book on "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

How Jefferson’s ‘pursuit of happiness’ phrase came to be

Historian Peter Moore examines six Enlightenment thinkers who influenced Thomas Jefferson’s drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

www.csmonitor.com

So, Jefferson's phrase doesn't appear to be unique to him or *wholly* a result of his personal Epicureanism, but Epicurus's ideas were percolating throughout the Enlightenment era.

Epicurus in the Enlightenment

Eighteenth-century Epicureanism is often viewed as radical, anti-religious and politically dangerous. But to what extent does this simplify the ancient…

www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk

Personally, I'm torn on how I feel about Jefferson. He was a fascinating man of science and invention, a pivotal Founder, a heckuva writer, but many of his actions make him difficult to like and from many accounts he was not an inspiring speaker.

That's probably a more lengthy response than you wanted! I'm glad you found our little Garden here online.

The case for laying emphasis in the episode on "lower case s 'skepticism' vs upper case s 'Skepticism'" is a good one. *BUT* there's one thing to note about Lucian's Alexander the Oracle Monger when the translation says "It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus[1], perhaps, a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by scepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility."

The Greek doesn't use the word for skeptic (σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") or a similar word. The word used is ἀπιστέω. The whole phrase is:

ἢ καὶ αὐτοῦ Ἐπικούρου (Epikourou) ἢ Μητροδώρου (Metrodorou) ἤ τινος ἄλλου ἀδαμαντίνην πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν γνώμην ἔχοντος, ὡς ἀπιστῆσαι καὶ ὅπερ ἦν εἰκάσαι, καὶ εἰ μὴ εὑρεῖν τὸν τρόπον ἐδύνατο, ἐκεῖνο γοῦν προπεπεισμένου, ὅτι λέληθεν αὐτὸν ὁ τρόπος τῆς μαγγανείας, τὸ δ᾽ οὖν πᾶν ψεῦδός ἐστι καὶ γενέσθαι ἀδύνατον.

The key words are:

• ἀδαμαντίνην (adamantinen) = adamantine, of steel
  • For those of you who are Marvel superhero fans, yes, that's like Wolverine's adamantium skeleton. So Epicurus and Metrodorus aren't simply "steeled" they have knowledge like adamantium
• γνώμην (gnomen) = knowledge, intelligence, judgement
• ἀφεστήξω (aphestexo) = disbelieve, distrust; doubt; to be incredulous

PS. I want to add (to be clear) that the skeptic/Skeptic distinction is valid and an important one due to the idiosyncrasies of English. Lower case skeptical is a decent translation of ἀφεστήξω, but looking at the ancient Greek itself - from my perspective - always provides additional nuance.

One thing that seems to be coming up in my research is that meat-eating was not nearly as prevalent in ancient Greece as we think of it now. That's one reason religious/civic festivals were so popular. Everyone got meat from the sacrificial animals roasting on the altar. The gods got the "choice" bits (fat, entrails, etc. - See here for a fascinating article) and the roasted meat was shared among all the celebrants. The ancient Greeks were not a "meat and potatoes" kind of people; more generally-speaking like a "bread and vegetables" people.

Quote from Joshua

The plural of anecdote is not data

I had not heard that before. That's a good one to remember. That'll show up in a future presentation for me at some point!

Here's an excerpt from Alan Watts' essay "Murder in the Kitchen"

Oh, and I just want to add here that I don't give out too often, and Cassius got two three in a row

Quote from Cassius

"An example of this sort of thing would be a flock of sheep. A flock of sheep is a real entity with real attributes, just as the individual sheep are real entities with different attributes. Just as the individual sheep are made of atoms, the flock is made of individual sheep."

I like this. That's well done.

I'm not sure I'm entirely ready to embrace the last paragraph, but the reasoning is sound it seems to me. I'm assuming you're aiming for a mechanism for the existence of the (physical) gods.