Posts by Don

Food for thought:

Galatians 4:8 & 9 - Exegesis

This is an early MA piece. Galatians 4:8 and 9 is a very important position in the book where Paul’s argument on the changed role of Jewish law is enhanced…

www.academia.edu

PS: So, while I still don't think Paul's use of στοιχεῖον supports the idea that the Galatians were Epicureans at some point, I *could* entertain that the Galatians were worshipers of the gods of the four "elements of the universe" as this paper entertains. I also continue to think that it could have something to do with adherence to the Law which Paul doesn't think brings salvation (hence it is "weak" and "beggarly"). But I don't think his wording allows for an Epicurean take on the "elements" in any way... At least not at this time.

You're both very kind.

And, just for the record, I'm open to others contesting my points or bringing you additional research on any of these St. Paul and Epicurus posts!

This is fun for me!

(I apologize for the length of this post! TLDR: I do NOT believe that the Galatians "weak and beggarly elements" refer to Epicurean atoms nor show the Galatians were Epicureans before converting)

There are two pertinent verses to examine when discussing the "weak and beggarly elements." DeWitt states that: "The inference is that the Galatians, before they became Christians, had been Epicureans and believers in the atomic theory. The word 'elements' is a synonym for 'atoms.'"

From my perspective, DeWitt goes way beyond any "inference" that can be gleaned from the verses in Galatians; however, keep reading from some possible wrinkles in my perspective.

The verses in question are Galatians 4:3 and 4:9:

• Galatians 4:3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces[a] of the world. (Footnote (a): Or under the basic principles) (New International Version)
• Galatians 4:3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental principles[a] of the world. (Footnote (a): Or spirits) (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
• Galatians 4:3 οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι· (Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) Greek New Testament)

• Galatians 4:9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? (Footnote (d): Or principles) (New International Version)
• Galatians 4:9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental principles?[e] How can you want to be enslaved to them again? (Footnote (e): Or spirits) (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
• Galatians 4:9 νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν [e]δουλεύειν θέλετε; (SBL Greek New Testament)

The words in question in the Greek are:

4:3 τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (ta stoikheia tou kosmou)

4:9 τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα (ta asthene kai ptokha stoikheia)

- τοῦ κόσμου < κόσμος kosmos i.e, cosmos: the world, the world system, our corner of the universe

- τὰ στοιχεῖα < στοιχεῖον "elements". This is the most important word in this argument, and it is the same word in both Galatians 4:3 and 4:9.

- ἀσθενῆ < ἀσθενής "weak"

- πτωχὰ < πτωχός "beggarly"

I first want to examine a selection of where Epicurus (or Diogenes Laertius) used στοιχεῖα or a close variation (Hicks translation available at Perseus Digital Library):

1. Epicurus, Letter to Menoikeus, 123: Ἃ δέ σοι συνεχῶς παρήγγελλον, ταῦτα καὶ πρᾶττε καὶ μελέτα, **στοιχεῖα** τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι διαλαμβάνων.

"And I was continuously exhorting you to practice, to study, and to meditate on those things which I state distinctly to be **the essential elements** of a noble, beautiful, and virtuous life."

2. Diogenes Laertius 10.30: καὶ ἔστιν ἐν ταῖς Περὶ φύσεως βίβλοις ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς **κατὰ στοιχεῖον**:

"[Epicurus's entire theory of Nature] is contained in the thirty-seven books Of Nature and, **in a summary form**, in the letters."

3. Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus, 36: ἐπεὶ καὶ τῷ τετελεσιουργημένῳ τοῦτο κυριώτατον τοῦ παντὸς ἀκριβώματος γίνεται, τὸ ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς ὀξέως δύνασθαι χρῆσθαι, ἑκάστων πρὸς ἁπλᾶ **στοιχειώματα** καὶ φωνὰς συναγομένων.

"For it is impossible to gather up the results of continuous diligent study of the entirety of things, unless we can embrace in short formulas and hold in mind all that might have been accurately expressed even to **the minutest detail.**"

3. Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus, 37: Ὅθεν δὴ πᾶσι χρησίμης οὔσης τοῖς ᾠκειωμένοις φυσιολογίᾳ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁδοῦ, παρεγγυῶν τὸ συνεχὲς ἐνέργημα ἐν φυσιολογίᾳ καὶ τοιούτῳ μάλιστα ἐγγαληνίζων τῷ βίῳ ἐποίησά σοι καὶ τοιαύτην τινὰ ἐπιτομὴν καὶ **στοιχείωσιν** τῶν ὅλων δοξῶν.

"Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous energy and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and **manual** of the doctrines as a whole."

4. Scholia to the Letter to Herodotus, 44: ἐν ταῖς Δώδεκα **στοιχειώσεσί**

"In the twelve **rudiments**" (for ease, let's call this "the twelve fundamentals")

5. Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus, 47: χρήσιμον δὴ καὶ τοῦτο κατασχεῖν τὸ **στοιχεῖον.**

"This is **an elementary fact** which in itself is well worth bearing in mind."

6. AND this one: Epicurus, Letter to Pythocles, 86: οἷον ὅτι τὸ πᾶν σώματα καὶ ἀναφὴς φύσις ἐστίν, ἢ ὅτι **ἄτομα <τὰ> στοιχεῖα**, καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ὅσα μοναχὴν ἔχει τοῖς φαινομένοις συμφωνίαν:

"for instance, that the whole of being consists of bodies and intangible nature, or that **the ultimate elements of things** are indivisible (atoma), or any other proposition which admits only one explanation of the phenomena to be possible."

To summarize,the meanings of the word when used in those texts of Epicurus and Diogenes Laertius are:

• **the essential elements** (of a noble life)
• **in a summary form**
• **the minutest detail**
• **manual** (of the doctrines as a whole)
• **rudiments** (i.e., fundamentals)
• **an elementary fact**
• **the ultimate elements of things** (are indivisible (atoma))

While this is a selection, and there are other variations within Diogenes Laertius's chapter on Epicurus, there is only one instance where Epicurus uses the word στοιχεῖα to refer to the "fundamental elements" of the physical universe. And, even there, he is using it in its "fundamental principle" connotation. The overwhelming use of that word in Epicurus's writings appears to be in the meaning of detail, fundamental, basic, elementary principles of a topic. We'll examine the uses of the word in the New Testament below.

To give DeWitt the benefit of the doubt, here is the definition of στοιχεῖον from Liddell & Scott (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, στοιχεῖον

In addition to the basic, elementary, fundamental principles of a topic (e.g., letters, elements of speech, elements of proof, lines, points, etc.), Liddell & Scott do include "in Physics, στοιχεῖα were the components into which matter is ultimately divisible, elements, reduced to four by Empedocles, who called them ῥιζὤματα, the word στοιχεῖα being first used (acc. to Eudem. ap. Simp.in Ph.7.13) by Plato."

There's also this definition from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible:

Here's Strong's outline of Biblical usage, which is important in the context of discussing Paul's use of the word in Galatians:

Entry G4747 στοιχεῖον

I. any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal

A. the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds

B. the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe

C. the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside

D. the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline, i.e. of mathematics, Euclid's geometry

Blue Letter Bible has Strong's Concordance that states that the KJV translates στοιχεῖον in the following manner: element (4x), rudiment (2x), principle (1x).

Galations 4:3 & 9, as well as:

2 Peter 3:10: the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the **elements** shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (KJV)

2 Peter 3:12: the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the **elements** shall melt with fervent heat? (KJV)

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments G4747 of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the **rudiments** of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances

Hebrews 5:12 ye have need that one teach you again which be the **first principles** of the oracles of God;

The "elements" melting with fervent heat sounds like the fundamental parts of the universe kind of? But remember this sense of στοιχεῖα usually referred to the four elements: air, earth, fire, water; and not the atoms of Epicurus. In almost all cases, Epicurus uses ἄτομοι "atoms" when he means atoms. As shown in his writing above, στοιχεῖον and its variants usually mean "fundamental principles" of a topic, etc.

I think the fact that we have a table of elements in physics and we think of elements like carbon, nitrogen, etc. can color one's interpretation of this word.

What do Biblical commentators say about Galatians ? This is also complicated by various competing Christian theologies, but let's take a look:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: Weak and beggarly elements.—”Elements” is used here, in the same sense as in Galatians 4:3, of that elementary religious knowledge afforded in different degrees to Jew and Gentile before the coming of Christ. These are called “weak” because they were insufficient to enable man to work out his own salvation. (Comp. St. Paul’s account of the inward struggle, and of the helpless condition to which man is reduced by it, in Romans 7:7-24.) They are called “beggarly,” or “poor,” because, unlike the gospel, they were accompanied by no outpouring of spiritual gifts and graces. The legal system was barren and dry; the gospel dispensation was rich with all the abundance and profusion of the Messianic time (Joel 2:19; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Isaiah 4:1; Isaiah 65:21-25; John 7:37-38, et al.) (Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/4-9.htm )

See also the commentary on Galatians 4:3 which has an extensive section on the meaning of στοιχεῖα

Galatians 4:3 - Sons and Heirs

So also, when we were children, we were enslaved under the basic principles of the world.

biblehub.com

For example: "The Greek word στοιχεῖα calls for a few remarks, founded upon the illustration of its use given by Schneider in his 'Greek Lexicon.'...it recites the rudimental instruction of children, as if the apostle had said "under the A, B, C, of the world." This is evidently intended to describe the ceremonial Law; for in ver. 5 the phrase, "those under the Law," recites the same persons as are here described as "under the rudiments of the world;" as again the "weak and beggarly rudiments," in ver. 9, are surely the same sort of" rudiments" as are illustrated in ver. 10 by the words, "Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years." Since the Law under which the people of God were placed was God's own ordinance, we must infer that, when it is here designated as "the A, B, C, of the world,"

In summary, I think the sense of the Galatians backsliding and being enslaved to the legalistic ceremonial Law makes more sense in the context in which Paul is writing than trying to make the Galatians lapsing back into Epicureanism. DeWitt's chapter on Galatians provides no hard data on Galatians previously being Epicureans, but rather "If this..and if this... and if this... and if this..." It's all conjecture, and not convincing conjecture. I liken Dewitt's reasoning in this chapter to buying a new red Subaru and then seeing nothing but red Subaru's on the road! If he's looking for Epicurean hints, he's going to see Epicurean hints everywhere. And where he doesn't see them, he invents a way that they could be there... with the barest of actual evidence.

Sorry. I'm going to have to say the Galatians "weak and beggarly elements" do NOT refer to Epicurean atoms nor show the Galatians were Epicureans before converting.

Dewitt brings up Antiochus Epiphanes at least a half dozen times in his St. Paul book. Here is an example, p.57:

Dewitt says later that "Neither can it be doubted, in view of his known conversion to Epicureanism, that [Antiochus's] name was associated with this hated philosophy." Maybe tangentially, but the Jews had much bigger grievances against this Hellenizing ruler.

For background, here's his WP article:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't even mention Epicureanism.

Antiochus is the big bad of the Maccabean revolt. The fact that he may have had some Epicureans at court does appear that there's where the start of Jewish antipathy toward Epicurus's philosophy began, but there were other reasons there Jews revolted against his reign. For example:

• In 167 BCE he placed a statue of the Greek god Zeus, in the Temple itself.
• He required Jews to sacrifice to the pagan gods.
• He made it illegal for Jews to circumcise their baby boys and to maintain their Jewish identity.

He basically tried to eradicate Jewish culture and practice. So, yeah, anything associated with him was going to be seen as repulsive!

As such, he became a favorite exemplar of the anti-religious ruler in Jewish and subsequently early Christian traditions. Some commentators see him as the "Man of sin", a precursor of the return of Christ, in 2 Thessalonians.

Quote from Bible Hub

VII. The Man of Sin.—We have stated our belief that “the Man of Sin” is not only to be identified with Daniel’s “Little Horn,” but that St. Paul consciously drew the doctrine from that passage. But it may be objected that some of the words in which St. Paul most narrowly describes him are taken, not from the description of the Little Horn in Daniel 7, but from that of the Little Horn of Daniel 8:5, which represents quite a different person, viz., Antiochus Epiphanes.[7] It might be thought, therefore, that St. Paul was only borrowing Daniel’s language, and not adopting his prophecy. The answer is, that even those prophecies of Antiochus in many points do not suit Antiochus at all; and not only so, but the Jewish expositors themselves held that Antiochus had not exhausted the meaning of the prophecy. They themselves applied it to some Antichrist, whose coming should precede, and be defeated by the Christ’s. Even in St. Jerome’s time, “From this place onwards” (he is commenting on Daniel 11:36) “the Jews think that Antichrist is spoken of, that, after the little help (Daniel 11:34) of Julian, a king shall arise who shall do according to his own will, and lift himself up against all which is called God, and speak great things against the God of gods, so that he shall sit in the Temple of God and make himself god, and his will be performed, until the wrath of God be fulfilled: for in him shall the end be. Which we, too, understand of Antichrist.” Thus, according to the current explanation of the Jews, Antiochus was looked upon as a type of the Antichrist, whom they expected to arise (in fulfilment of Daniel 7:8) at the overthrow of the Roman empire, whose coming was to precede the Christ’s. The only change made by the Christian Church is to apply to the Second Advent a prophecy which the Jews applied to the one Advent which they recognised. It is impossible not to do so when, in Daniel 12:2, we have the Resurrection made to follow close upon the development of this Antiochus-Antichrist. So far, then, as St. Paul’s date is concerned, the doctrine is drawn from Daniel 2, 7; traits of character are added (in accordance with Jewish interpretation) from Daniel 8, 11.

There's a lot to unpack there and I'm not the one to do it.

One academic site helps to put Antiochus's connection to Epicureanism in context:

Quote from Gary Zabel

Antiochus was sympathetic to Epicureanism (albeit not acting in accord with Epicurus's injunctions to avoid politics), so his attempt at a forced hellenization of Judea was closely linked to Epicureanism in the minds of the Judean patriots. Another factor was that Epicureans were prominent in the hellenized cities of Galilee, creating a rivalry between Epicureanism and the traditional religion among the northern Judeans. Antiochus's provocations brought about a strong nationalistic reaction, which exploded into violence when a rumor of Antiochus's death reached Judea. While the rumor was false, nonetheless the Hasmonean leader Judas Maccabeus was ultimately successful in his revolt against the Seleucids.

In short, Antiochus Epiphanes (nicknamed Epimanes "the Mad" by his subjects) became a personification of all things apostate and evil and sinful in the world, could have been the impetus for the use of apikiros "apostate" in Jewish texts, and was looked back on by Paul as the "man of sin" prophesied to come before the return of Jesus. I don't see his Epicurean leanings or sympathies as *the* prime mover in that personification but only one Hellenic aspect of the whole picture.

Cassius mentioned in another thread about being curious if Epicurus or the Epicureans were the Antichrist. Here we go...

First, the word ἀντίχριστος "antichrist" only appears in the New Testament books of 1 and 2 John:

1Jo 2:18 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jo 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The "antichrists" of 1 John are Docetic Christians within the Christian community. Docetism was the idea that Jesus was the "adopted" son of God and not a pre-existent divine being and so on. Docetic Christians didn't believe Jesus was God "in the flesh." This was antithetical to the proto-orthodox doctrine, and so, they were anti-Christ. The context of 2 John also sounds like (to other Christian scholars) that those antichrists are docetic Christians who have left the proto-orthodox flock.

I find it interesting in Dewitt's book that he often hedges his bets and uses phrases like "a sort of Antichrist" or "associated with Antichrist" or "This is Antichrist, though the name is not used." That word antichrist has such Boogeyman connotations in popular culture that it seems to me like Dewitt invokes that word to conjure up Epicurus as the big bad villain of all of Christian Scripture. And the overall evidence isn't there. I'll admit, there might be more there there than I originally thought, but nowhere near to the extent that Dewitt wants there to be in his Rorschach test approach to the texts. Fully agree with what Sandnes states in his book (mentioned in another thread):

Quote

[Dewitt's] book is strong on suggestions but short on argument and evidence. A cautious reading of the book is therefore recommended.

Next up .. a look at Antiochus Epiphanies, the Epicurean King! (Insert scary minor key music here)

Haven't read this yet but could prove interesting or applicable:

Paul and the Athens Epicureans: Between Polytheisms, Atheisms and Monotheisms, Diogenes 205, 2004, p. 47-60.

Paul the apostle seems to have considered philosophy as a rival more than an enemy: when he approached the Athens Aeropagus to explain the Christians&#39; new…

www.academia.edu

The only *explicit* mention of Epicureans in the Bible is in Acts:

Acts 17:18

Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this pretentious 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.)

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

The Uproar in Thessalonica - After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.…

www.biblegateway.com

But they were obviously around!

Paul was writing probably 48-60 CE.

Plus, remember the composition of Acts is usually dated to around 80–90 CE, although some scholars suggest 110–120 CE. So, there were most likely a significant number of Epicureans at that time for the reading audience to know who these "Epicureans" were.

Quote from Cassius

Good grief how'd you get this research done so fast! You've been holding back!

That's what happens when everyone is busy at home on a Saturday night I do this for fun!

Check out this one, too. Do a search in that text for Epicurean. One page to use as an example:

Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon (His Commentary on the New Testament) : Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

2 Philipians 3:19

ων ο θεος η κοιλια "their god is the belly"

και η δοξα εν τη αισχυνη "and the δόξα 'principle, belief, etc. is in the shame"

Dewitt

At first glance, this one at least seems to have promise. See:

Quote from Usener fr.409

Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, XII p. 546F: And Epicurus says, "The principle and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this."

Metrodorus, Letter to his Brother Timocrates, fr. 13 [p. 51 Duen.], by way of Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 16, p. 1098D: {We are not called to save the nation or get crowned by it for wisdom; what is called for, my dear Timocrates, is to eat and to drink wine, gratifying the belly without harming it.} ... It made me both happy and confident to have learned from Epicurus how to gratify the belly properly. ... {The belly, Timocrates, my man of wisdom, is the region that contains the highest end.}

So the "belly" is associated with the Epicureans. Paul uses a different word, κοιλῐ́ᾱ koilia, than it is in the 409 fragment, γαστήρ gastēr (where we get gastro-).

The second part "η δοξα εν τη αισχυνη." Dewitt translates δόξα as "shame" but that's the same word as κυριάι δόξα "Principle Doctrines."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δόξα^

In the Septuagent and NT letters, it means glory, splendor, as in the trust or belief someone has in you.

More commentary:

Philippians 3:19 Commentaries: whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.

Quote from Selections from above commentary link

Whose God is their belly.—A stronger reiteration of Romans 16:18, “They serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly.” Note the emphasis laid on “feasting and rioting” in 2Peter 2:13; Jude 1:12.

Whose glory is in their shame.—As the preceding clause refers chiefly to self-indulgence, so this to impurity. Comp. Ephesians 5:12, “It is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” “To glory in their shame”—to boast, as a mark of spirituality, the unbridled license which is to all pure spirits a shame—is the hopeless condition of the reprobate, who “not only do these things, but have pleasure in those who do them” (Romans 1:32).

Who mind earthly things.—This last phrase, which in itself might seem hardly strong enough for a climax to a passage so terribly emphatic, may perhaps be designed to bring out by contrast the glorious passage which follows. But it clearly marks the opposition between the high pretension to enlightened spirituality and the gross carnal temper which it covers, grovelling (so to speak) on earth, incapable of rising to heaven.

...

Whose God is their belly - Who worship their own appetites; or who live not to adore and honor God, but for self-indulgence and sensual gratifications; see Romans 16:18.

And whose glory is in their shame - That is, they glory in things of which they ought to be ashamed. They indulge in modes of living which ought to cover them with confusion.

Who mind earthly things - That is, whose hearts are set on earthly things, or who live to obtain them. Their attention is directed to honor, gain, or pleasure, and their chief anxiety is that they may secure these objects. This is mentioned as one of the characteristics of enmity to the cross of Christ; and if this be so, how many are there in the church now who are the real enemies of the cross! How many professing Christians are there who regard little else than worldly things! How many who live only to acquire wealth. to gain honor, or to enjoy the pleasures of the world! How many are there who have no interest in a prayer meeting, in a Sunday school, in religious conversation, and in the advancement of true religion on the earth! These are the real enemies of the cross. It is not so much those who deny the doctrines of the cross, as it is those who oppose its influence on their hearts; not so much those who live to scoff and deride religion, as it is those who "mind earthly things," that injure this holy cause in the world.

Display More

Romans 16:18 again uses κοιλιά for belly:

New King James Version

For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

New Revised Standard Version

For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Commentary on Romans 16:18 included:

On τῇ κοιλίᾳ δουλεύειν, τῇ γαστρὶ δουλεύειν, abdomini servire (Seneca, de benef. vii. 26), as a designation of selfishness, bent only on good cheer in eating and drinking, comp. on Php 3:19; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 416. For this object the sectaries sought to make use of the influence and following which they obtained. Comp. Lucian, de morte Peregr. 11 ff. Behind their teaching, although this was not itself of an Epicurean nature (Hofmann), there lurked, hypocritically concealed, the tendency to epicurean practice.

Romans 16:18 Commentaries: For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

[Note the small e and capital E e/Epicurean in that commentary]

See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/e…/romans-16.html

In verse 18

Okay, now it's getting good. Check out Belly and body in the Pauline Epistles by Karl Olav Sandnes:

Belly and body in the Pauline Epistles : Sandnes, Karl Olav, 1954- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xiv, 318 pages ; 22 cm

archive.org

(Check out with free account one hour at a time)

This one to check out! It specifically mentions and critiques Dewitt's book and throws a couple positive remarks in. For example:

Quote

Page 137

© Norman Wentworth de Witt, St Paul and Epicurus, pp. 21-37; he includes a presentation of other Pauline texts as well. His book has received very little attention, which is not surprising. The book is strong on suggestions but short on argument and evidence. A cautious reading of the book is therefore recommended. Paul is himself considered to be a former Epicurean, which is indeed difficult to imagine, taking into account his indebtedness to Jewish Pharisaism. But also de Witt has some precedents in suggesting an Epicurean background for Phil. 3:19. This is so particularly in some older commentaries; see Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Philippians, pp. 182-3; J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 155. This insight has been neglected in more recent exegesis of the Pauline passages in question in this study. Paul Ewald, Philipper, pp. 205—7 dismisses the ancient material on the belly, by saying that in the majority of the texts, yaotfp is used rather than ko1Aia; so also Wolfgang Schenk, Philipperbriefe, p. 287. Although this observation is formally correct, the material is by no means consistent enough to justify its dismissal.

I would find this an interesting thread and plan to contribute as I'm able. I want to start with just one point of Dewitt's: That the "Peace and Safety" in 2 Thessalonians 5:30 identifies the group speaking as Epicureans.

Here's the verse in context:

Quote from 2 Thessalonians 5:3 NRSV

5 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; 5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. 6 So, then, let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober, 7 for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night.

Here is where for the first time in the St. Paul book that Dewitt declares "Peace and Safety" are Epicurean "catchwords." :

I'll admit I was guilty using them as a salutation on them forum when I first started posting here.

However, Dewitt's assertion is simply that: an assertion. Paul is simply saying that when people think "There's peace and safety" they can be wrong, they are wrong. Just when they think it's safe, "sudden destruction will come upon them."

Here are some commentaries:

1 Thessalonians 5:3 Commentaries: While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

Quote from Selection from those commentaries linked above

Peace and safety.—Carrying on the thought suggested by the word “night; they are taking their repose in security, without dreaming of any interruption to their slumbers. Is it possible that there may here be a faint recollection of the parable related in Matthew 25:1-13? (Parable of Ten Virgins and their lamps)

...

[ὅταν λέγωσιν] when they shall say, when it is said. As the subject of the verb, the apostle naturally thinks not on the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Harduin), but, as is evident from the nature of the expression of opinion added, and from the apodosis, unbelievers and merely nominal Christians, the children of this world; comp. Matthew 24:38 ff.; Luke 17:26 ff. For the pious and true Christian never abandons himself to the feeling of security, but is always mindful of his salvation with fear and trembling; comp. Php 2:12.

[εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια] {peace and safety) sc. ἐστίν; comp. Ezekiel 13:10. {Because, in truth, because they have misled my people, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear whitewash on it.}

...

3. For when they shall say] Rather, when they are saying (R. V.). In the very act of their saying “Peace and safety”—just when men of the world pronounce everything secure and quiet—then the thief comes, who steals from them the possessions they imagined safe from all attack. A reminiscence of Ezekiel 13:10, “Saying Peace, and there was no peace!” Such times of security are pregnant with judgement to the wicked, and premonitory of some “day of the Lord.”

Display More

I see no reason in the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:3 to assert that Epicureans are the ones to whom Paul is ascribing "Peace and Safety" as some kind of catchword or greeting or anything.

btw Cassius I am thoroughly enjoying this deep dive. I find it hard to believe this entire thread, all 28 posts is a product of 24 hours (here and in a private conversation)!! These are the kinds of discussions not available anywhere else on the Web! Thank you! And keep it coming unless you think we've exhausted the topic!

Quote from Cassius

The items in a collection of quotes would more than likely be selected according to the generality and importance of its application.

I would concur.

On a side note: we need to start calling The Vatican Sayings Επικουρου προσφωνησισ (Epikourou prosphonesis) "Epicurus's Declaration" or "The Declaration of Epicurus." That is the section title in the manuscript. It seems appropriate since not all of the quotes come from Epicurus but also Metrodorus and the other Founders I think. It's like they speak with one voice to the voice of Epicurus. I've shared before that I've seen the title translated as "The Voice of Epicurus." That's pretty good, too. Takes the emphasis off the barrier Vatican and back onto Epicurus. We don't call Marcus Aurelius's book The Vatican Diary (I seem to remember it's in the same manuscript)

Quote from Cassius

Dillahunty but he sure seems to be on the right side.

I've been a fan of his for awhile now.

Quote from Cassius

If this is the way Peterson generally talks then he's insufferable

Yep (in my opinion)

Quote from Cassius

‘I feel: therefore I exist.’

I think a better formulation would be "I exist, therefore, I feel." Existence comes before feeling.

I have found this excerpt of a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Jordan Peterson interesting where Peterson tries to defend the premise that death is preferable to life. Cards on the table: I'm in agreement with Dillahunty here:

Skip ahead to 49:30 for the discussion of life vs death.

Quote from Cassius

To say that we enjoy pleasure when we feel it without intervening step (thinking about it) is possible, but to me that is so obvious as to not likely be the meaning. To my knowledge no one contends that you have to think about pleasure before you feel it.

However, it would assert the primacy of feeling over reason. Reason is subordinate to the immediate feelings of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

I don't know that 42's sequence in the list tells us much, but it seems to be in a section of very practical advice.

I would be skeptical of an interpretation using the Vatican Sayings sequence. This list is never mentioned in the ancient sources. On the other hand, Principle Doctrines is mentioned by name.

Quote from Cassius

42. At the very same time, the greatest good is created and the greatest evil is removed.

I think we need to throw out any translations that add "the greatest evil." That's not in the manuscript and adding things just to make a convenient translation seems disingenuous to me. The manuscript has:

ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως

with that last word being open to discussion.

Something like:

(At) the same time the greatest good (is) both created and ἀπολύσεως/ἀπολαύσεως.

If we go with ἀπολύσεως, we have to go with a meaning like to do away with, to remove, to set free, to release from.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπολύω

If we accept ἀπολαύσεως, we get to take pleasure in, enjoyment, delight. It's literally one letter difference!

The HUGE issue here is that the saying is completely divorced from its original textual context. Was Epicurus arguing against a specific point? Was he speaking generally? Here's an out of the box: if we take ἀπολαύσεως, was he using it as an argument against a virtue argument that you can't say you're only doing the act of virtue for itself; you do the virtuous act (create) and immediately enjoy it, you get satisfaction and joy the moment it is created. You can't separate the two.

Quote from Cassius

Bailey: “The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment.”

I agree with DeWitt that this statement is counterintuitive, not true, and therefore in DeWitt's word nonsensical.

I don't agree, other than to say Bailey's unfortunate choice of "blessing" for ἀγαθοῦ agathou "good" is unfortunate. And I think you know my position on Dewitt calling something nonsensical I think the meaning of Bailey's translation is almost too obvious. We enjoy pleasure "the greatest good" at the moment we feel it. There is no intermediate step. There is no intervening rational intrusion. Pleasure feels good at the moment it is created.

Quote from Cassius

I am conscious that many people probably read my exchanges with Don on this and think we are arguing with each other for no reason other than stubbornness.

Quote from Cassius

On the contrary, I think it is not really an "argument" but an exploration of the details, and the discussion is highly useful because it is going to lead to a lot of beneficial results. If we weren't having this back and forth it would be highly tempting just to drop the subject before the implications are fully brought out.

Okay, here's VS42 in the manuscript:

starting with the big red Ο. It's just one line. There's a lot of abbreviation and ligatures going on in that last pivotal word! It's almost like the scribe didn't know what to copy either

απολ... is uncontroversial. That's right there.

The loopy "Nike swoosh" after that also has a dot above it. It looks like an exaggerated upsilon υ, but why exaggerate it? Idiosyncratic handwriting? Have to think more about that, but there's your data.

And there is NO <τοῦ κακοῦ>! That doesn't appear in the manuscript. So whatever interpretation one does, it shouldn't involve that addition.

Quote from Cassius

Torquatus does not seem to be as clear and successful in explaining Chrysippus' hand or the equation of pleasure as the absence of pain in a way that Cicero finds persuasive

Remember, "Torquatus" is simply Cicero's Epicurean mouthpiece. Cicero isn't taking dictation. "Torquatus" is a character created by Cicero loosely based on a real person who is dead at the time of the composition. Cicero can conveniently pick and choose exactly what he wants "Torquatus" to say.