Christianity.
Christianity.
It goes back further than that. Dr. Gordon's book documents the idea back to or shortly after Epicurus's own lifetime
Christianity.
To be fair, Hedonists (albeit Cyrenaics, or Epicureans, or others) have always been accused of excess by their philosophical and religious opponents. One of the first criticisms we find of Epicurus comes from Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, who accused Epicurus of being a glutton and a pervert.
Even then, Stoics like Seneca, and critics like Cicero, still demonstrate genuine admiration for Epicurus, and recognize that most of his philosophical positions were dignified and respectable.
With the (possible) sole exception of Gassendi and his followers in the Renaissance, Christian clergy, scholars, and theologians have operated on the principle that Epicureanism is at least misguided and at most pure evil. St. Augustine lambasts Epicureanism. Dante degrades Epicureans in his Divine Comedy. Pamela Gordon's excellent book The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus shows how, for millennia, opponents of Epicureanism (primarily Christians) bastardized his name with slurs (primarily accusing him of being effeminate because Christian culture has been so hostile to femininity). The examples are extensive.
But, to reiterate: Christianity is the biggest reason.
(You can read Gordon's book for free at this publicly-hosted location that in no way, shape, or form implicates EpicureanFriends as infringers of copyright: https://librosycultura2.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/gordon…of-epicurus.pdf)
But, to reiterate: Christianity is the biggest reason.
Actually, I take that back.
The biggest culprit in the modern era (because your average American can't be expected to employ historical terminology like "Epicureanism") are restaurateurs, who have changed the definition to mean "foodie".
I think at this point it's not a matter of criticism as much as a complete re-definition of the word.
I’d really like to know how being Epicurean got to be twisted on its head i.e being a person who is into fine and luxurious foods.
Most of the comment so far focus on the intentional warping.
There is also the fact that there is a "grain of truth" in that if you are thinking that Epicurus was "only" into simple pleasures, then that too is not true.
Epicurus was into "pleasure" and that can come in many ways, simple and luxurious, and the trick is to maneuveur through your personal context to focus on pleasures that do not cause you more pain than you are willing to experience for the sake of those pleasures.
The standard translation of VS63 is: VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.
Further in the letter to Menoeceus:
130] Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard. And so plain savours bring us a pleasure equal to a luxurious diet, when all the pain due to want is removed; and bread and water produce the highest pleasure, when one who needs them puts them to his lips.
So there is both the "intentional misrepresentation" and the "grain of truth" that can be seen when you dive into the specific meaning of the words involved.
Welcome to the forum! This and many other similar questions are very deep so we always like to discuss them.
Here's the entry from the Oxford English Dictionary with its historical citations:
Noun
A person devoted to sensual pleasure, esp. to eating and drinking; a hedonist; a glutton. In later use also: a person who cultivates a refined taste for, or takes a particular pleasure in, fine food and drink; an epicure. In early use chiefly depreciative.
a1450 (▸c1435) J. Lydgate Life SS. Edmund & Fremund (Harl.) l. 225 in C. Horstmann Altengl. Legenden (1881) 2nd Ser. 381 (MED) Fals lust..of epicuriens.
a1475 (▸?a1430) J. Lydgate tr. G. Deguileville Pilgrimage Life Man (Vitell.) l. 12786 ‘I wolde se What Epicuriens sholde be.’..‘That perfyt ffelycyte Ys, that a man lyk hys delyt, ffolwe alway hys appetyt.’
a1572 J. Knox Hist. Reformation Scotl. (1587) 188 Simon Preaston..a right Epicurian.
a1652 J. Smith Select Disc. (1660) i. iii. 21 Those poor brutish Epicureans that have nothing but the meer husks of fleshly pleasure to feed themselves with.
1728 S. Whatley tr. J. Lenfant Hist. Council of Constance I. 577 Jerome was such an Epicurean in his Prison, that he spent his whole Time in Drunkenness and Gluttony.
1825 W. Scott Talisman x, in Tales Crusaders III. 250 He was a voluptuary and an epicurean.
1855 J. L. Motley Rise Dutch Republic I. ii. i. 256 A horde of lazy epicureans, telling beads and indulging themselves in luxurious vice.
1935 Washington Post 16 Oct. 5 There are a few real epicureans of the table.
2008 National Jeweler 1 Oct. 18 It [sc. chocolate] has become a bonbon for adults, to be savored by epicureans.
Adjective:
Originally: devoted to the pursuit of pleasure; (hence) hedonistic, gluttonous. Now chiefly: designating a person who takes a particular pleasure in fine food and drink; characteristic of, or suitable for, such a person; gourmet. Cf. epicure n. 2.
1583 W. Chauncie tr. P. Viret Worlde Possessed with Deuils ii. sig. F.vi Their Epicurian life [Fr. leur vie Epicurienne], giuen ouer to al filthinesse and enormitie.
1612 C. Demetrius tr. Most True Relation Earth-quake sig. B2v All at their plenteous and Epicurean voluptuous tables, fall to drinking, swilling, and carowsing deepe healths.
a1616 W. Shakespeare Antony & Cleopatra (1623) ii. i. 24 Epicurean Cookes, Sharpen with cloylesse sawce his Appetite.
1641 J. Milton Of Reformation 84 Warming their Palace Kitchins, and from thence their unctuous, and epicurean paunches.
1656 A. Cowley Misc. 37 in Poems Voluptuous, and Wise with all, Epicuraean Animal!
1750 Student 1 No. 6. 214 I'll be temperate, and stoutly withstand all the allurements of delicious fare, and the seducements of epicurean companions.
1765 Parasite II. xvii. 204 He dined at the Twopence Halfpenny Ordinary in Newgate Street (which we cannot suppose to have been a very Epicurean Meal).
1826 Monitor (Sydney) 15 Dec. 245/3 He who has fed upon corn for six-months, can eat a ‘fat cake’, with a true epicurean relish.
1850 T. Carlyle Latter-day Pamphlets vi. 15 No longer an earnest Nation, but a light, sceptical epicurean one.
1856 H. Penciller Rural Life in Amer. viii. 222 An epicurean fare we lived on, too.
1934 G. Ross Tips on Tables 37 An entree to delight any epicurean soul.
1954 Life 1 Feb. 44/2 Fancy preparing an epicurean feast so fast!
2008 IPA Rev. (Austral.) July 11/2 Slow food is not just an epicurean delight—it is a political and ideological movement.
To be fair, Hedonists (albeit Cyrenaics, or Epicureans, or others) have always been accused of excess by their philosophical and religious opponents.
And it appears it wasn't even just philosophical opponents. It appears that the "Epicurean" as cook or gourmand was even a familiar trope in New Comedy. There are "contemporary or near-contemporary [to the life of Epicurus] depictions of Epicureans, considering at length the buffoonish chef, a stock character in the New Comedy often depicted as an Epicurean to lambaste sensual pleasure and lack of self-control." Source
I do know that Epicureans believed in gods who had put things in motion but then removed themselves from our affairs and sat completely detached from humans
I am sure others will chime in but if by "things" you mean the entire universe, then this is not correct -- that is the "deist" view but not the Epicurean view. In the Epicurean view the universe is eternal and was never created by any gods or other supernatural forces. In whole and in total (not particular planets or solar systems or galaxies, but truly 'in whole') the universe has always existed and always will exist. That is why the phrases "nothing from nothing" and "nothing to nothing" are so foundational.
As far as the rest of your paragraph yes that would be correct. There is absolutely no "supernatural" dimension -- no heaven, no hell, no afterlife of any kind.
Thanks for that question and that helps let us know where you are in your reading.
We have some initial introductory material on pages like this -- http://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/new-user-page/
- but we really need better summaries of the core material.
All of the books and material we have listed in your "Welcome" message are good, and where you start depends mainly on your particular interests. The videos and other intro material on Youtube and elsewhere generally focus on the "ethics" questions and they can leave people bewildered if they don't understand some of the basic worldview issues first.
It would be of great help to us if you would give us feedback on what you find to be clear and what you find to be confusing as you read further into Epicurus. We use information like that to make the website better and to decide what kind of new materials to produce.
Epicurus was into "pleasure" and that can come in many ways, simple and luxurious, and the trick is to maneuveur through your personal context to focus on pleasures that do not cause you more pain than you are willing to experience for the sake of those pleasures.
ok great, so I promise I will go away and do some reading but could anyone briefly summarize.....
We are glad to do that in virtually every case so don't worry that you are be asked to go away and read the manual 
ok great, so I promise I will go away and do some reading but could anyone briefly summarise why Christianity was a problem for Epicurus - obviously Christian’s believed in a personal god but how would Christianity have helped portray Epicureanism as excess?
Christians did not like (to put it mildly) that Epicureans did not believe in an immortal soul that could be punished or rewarded in an afterlife. The Christians also didn't like that Epicureans did not believe "god" intervened in the world and human affairs. There were a number of "disagreements" but those are the main ones.
Epicureans are actually mentioned in the Bible at Acts 17:18.
FYI... Acts 17:18-34 (NRSV)
The word "babbler" is actually σπερμολόγος (spermalogos) "idle babbler, gossiper"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σπερμο-λόγος
18Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities.” (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means.” 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new.
22Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26From one ancestor[i] he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God[j] and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we too are his offspring.’
29Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
32When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33At that point Paul left them. 34But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Also didn’t Epicurus only eat water and bread and sometimes a little cheese?
That's a common misconception. Here's my commentary on that in my letter to Menoikeus translation:
These are two important words: μᾶζα, ὕδωρ. A number of commentators point to these two words to insist that Epicurus and all those who lived or studied in the Garden ate only “bread and water.” I have always been curious about which kind of bread was being referred to. It turns out its μᾶζα (maza) which was an ancient Greek barley-cake or a thick barley porridge as opposed to ἄρτος (artos), a cake or loaf of wheat bread. Maza could be a quick, hearty, simple meal all by itself. Pass the Flamingo (a website on ancient recipes and food) has an interesting article on it which includes a recipe.
It’s important to point back to verse 126c at this point. The idea of eating “only” bread and water seems Spartan (pun intended) and ascetic to us, but bread and water (or, probably more commonly, wine) *was* a meal in ancient Greece. A simple meal of maza with a cup of water, without all the extra dishes that made up ὄψον, would not have been an uncommon meal. Epicurus isn’t advocating an ascetic lifestyle here. He’s pointing to the simple, everyday meals that many Athenians took for granted. You don't need an extravagant, ten-course feast to experience pleasure. Slow down, appreciate what's in front of you, take delight in the everyday pleasures - like that meal you don't give a second thought to. But Epicurus will have more to say about this soon.
