Would you agree that, although there is a finite about of matter and space in world-systems, there is an infinite amount of matter and space outside of (ie between) world-systems?
Yep. I'd agree with that. There are other cosmoi out beyond our world-system taking up some of that infinite matter, then probably some matter floating around between world-systems.
But, by definition, the intermundia/metakosmos doesn't have a world. If it did, it would be a cosmos/mundus.
First, believe that the god is a blessed and imperishable thing (τὸν θεὸν ζῷον) as is the common, general understanding of the god. You, Menoikeus, believe everything about which a god is able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself. Do not attribute anything foreign to its incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of the god! Gods exist, and the knowledge of them is manifest to the mind's eye.
τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "the god (is a) blessed and imperishable ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?
First, note the singular "god." Not gods. This use of the singular - a god, the god - in the Menoikeus letter has led Long and Sedley offer that each individual creates their own god, their own image of the divine. I am still firmly rooted in this conceptual camp of the gods rather than imaging inter-cosmic beings hanging out somewhere in the universe. One reason: By definition, if they are inter-cosmic - literally between world-systems - there is nowhere for them to live! A cosmos is a world-system - ours has Earth at the center surrounded by the orb of the heavenly stars and wandering planets. There is no world in the metakosmos/intermundia - it is literally "between" worlds... No planet, no stars, no world.
But the word ζῷον (zoon) could very well be a clever use of an ordinary word by Epicurus.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ζῷον
Yes, it "typically" means living being, animal. It's where we get zoology from.
BUT... it also can mean "in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals."
And that second definition is NOT a later application that Epicurus didn't know. Here are some examples from Herodotus (c.484–c.425 BCE, from LSJ; Epicurus lived 341–270 BCE) and others:
The Histories, 3.88: First he made and set up a carved stone, upon which was cut the figure of a horseman ( πρῶτον μέν νυν τύπον ποιησάμενος λίθινον ἔστησε: ζῷον δέ οἱ ἐνῆν ἀνὴρ ἱππεύς)
The Histories, 1.203: Here, it is said, are trees growing leaves that men crush and mix with water and use for painting figures on their clothing; these figures (ζῷα) cannot be washed out, but last as long as the wool, as if they had been woven into it from the first.
The Histories, 2.4: it was they (Egyptians) who first assigned to the several gods their altars and images and temples, and first carved figures (ζῷα) on stone.
The Histories, 2.124: [4] (for the road is nearly a mile long and twenty yards wide, and elevated at its highest to a height of sixteen yards, and it is all of stone polished and carved with figures (ζῴων))
The Histories, 2.148: Near the corner where the labyrinth ends stands a pyramid two hundred and forty feet high, on which great figures (ζῷα μεγάλα ) are cut.
The Histories, 4.88: Mandrocles took the first-fruits of these and had a picture (ζῷα) made with them, showing the whole bridge of the Bosporus
Plato, Republic, 515a: [515a] and shapes of animals (ζῷα) as well, wrought in stone and wood and every material..
Plutarch, Pericles, 13: And yet they say that once on a time when Agatharchus the painter (ζώγραφος "one who paints from life") was boasting loudly of the speed and ease with which he made his figures (ζῷα), Zeuxis heard him, and said, ‘Mine take, and last, a long time.’
So, why am I belaboring this point? I find these instances of ζῷα interesting precisely because of the letter to Menoikeus saying in 123 " πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη." Usually translated as "First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. (Saint-Andre); the literal meaning of this line is something like: "Fundamentally/first, know that the god is incorruptible and blessed, as common knowledge of the god is ὑπεγράφη."
ὑπεγράφη "has been outlined, traced"
Epicurus is using the image of outlining or tracing an image to be filled in by another. Consider this like the image of letters indicated by a teacher by an outline or tracing for the student to then follow. So the idea that the gods are imperishable and blessed is, basically, how the gods are commonly understood to be -- that is the general indication of the nature of the gods.
Herodotus and the other citations above all have to do with etching on stone or outlining on fabric. That similarity with the common knowledge of the god being outlined or traced is too enticing not to explore the implications of for me.
First, discussions of the gods strike me as akin to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" There's never going to be a right answer. However, I readily admit that Epicurus and the Epicurean school placed profound and primary importance on a right understanding of the gods and our relationship to them. It's first in the letter to Menoikeus, first in Principal Doctrines, first in the Tetrapharmakos, hinted at in Book 1 (1.44-9) of Lucretius and mentioned in several places thereafter.
But what is that profound and primary importance. From my perspective:
All that said, I'm still not sold on the idea that Epicurus insisted that the gods exist as "animals." I'm going to address that in the next post to make it easier for everyone to react to the above statements. And I'm sure there will be reactions.
Since the universe can't have just 'popped up' as the late Hawkings believed we must assume that it actually has divine roots.
They could represent a sort of spiritual or contemplative activity by the gods with the purpose of imitating the platonic One, the theoretical ineffable principle of reality, inaccessible even to the gods.
receive some of their divine essence, it can be assumed that the gods contemplate the One and that this contemplation results in a burst of creative energy that perpetually generates finite universes.
Hmmm...I would't think any of that is Epicurean, either classical or modern. Are you getting those ideas from specific textual references?
Just a note on 'apiqoros coming from Epicurean and not Epicurus, remember that the ancient Greek for "Epicurean" is Ἐπικούρειος (Epikoureios) so both Epicurean and Epicurus end in sigma (ς "s") in Greek. So it seems to me both are viable options although the group name does seem to make more sense.
Just saw this thread listed in "Research Projects" and finally downloaded "A Diachronic Study of the 3Apiqoros in Rabbinic Literature" by Jenny R. Labendz. Here are some excerpts and notes (Quotes are from Labendz paper unless otherwise noted):
"Tannaim were the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 10–220 CE. The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 210 years." - Wikipeda (Tannaim)
The paper continues that, although the origin of the name 'apiqoros definitely originally referred to Epicureans, by the 4th century CE the Greek philosophical schools (Stoicism, Epicureanism, Scepticism) had "basically disappeared." The amoraim (Jewish scholars of 200-500 CE) primarily in Babylonia and Israel, probably never encountered actual Epicureans. "..these Rabbis were not bound to maintain that 'apiqoros meant Epicurean, even if they understood the historical and philosophical meaning of that term. It was obvious to them... that an 'apiqoros was something decidely negative, but in the absence of real Epicureans, they could, and did, give free reign to their imaginations to construct new definitions."
"Modern philologists are generally in agreement that the word 'apiqoros is a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek word for either Epicurus or Epicurean." It appears that the consensus is that the generic word Epicurean was the one adapted into Hebrew.
"Epicureans flourished in Palestine...and they missionized ardently." The author cites DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 3, and Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (Routledge, 1989), 64, for this information. "Since the Epicureans missionized vigorously, the Rabbis may have encountered them somewhat regularly, and might have been able to read or at least hear the epitomes that encapsulated Epicurean philosophy and theology." The author cites Saul Lieberman's Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1962) in several places:
However, the consensus seems to be that since the tannaim literature doesn't employ any Greek philosophical terms "the Rabbi's knowledge of Greek philosophy was limited." ...
Even with this basic knowledge, the Rabbis knew enough to consider the Epicureans "heretical, such as the Epicurean denial of divine providence."
The author notes that this mishnah presumes the reader knows who/what an Epicurean is... later amoraim who inherit the term have to "reconstruct its meaning."
The author posits that the Rabbis encountered the Epicureans would most likely have debated them. The intellectual Rabbis were likely targets for Epicurean missionizing and for the pamphlets the Epicureans distributed. So, the Rabbis goals was to know how to counter these basic Epicurean arguments.
Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 (excerpt)
Again, it is assumed that the reader will know who/what an Epicurean is, and this person is someone with whom the student will interact. "Here, the student is being warned against the consequence of actually being an Epicurean himself. This may be what motivates Judah Goldin's assertion that 'apiqoros refers specifically to a Jewish Epicurean." (Goldin, Studies in Midrash and Related Literature (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1988, 62).
"Several things can be learned from this mishnah about the tannaitic conception of the Epicurean. First...God is the one who punishes the Epicurean. The problematic nature of being an Epicurean is the theoretical or intellectual rather than practical ... the Epicurean, who denies divine reward and punishment, and is thereby excluded from divine reward in the world to come." The mishnah goes on to say that the Epicureans "says there is no way to learn resurrection of the dead...that the Torah is not from Heaven." These are "essential religious truths" according to the Rabbis. So the "salient charateristics of Epicureanism" were the "outright denial of providence" and not their missionary efforts or some metaphysical, philosophical theories.
Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:5 lists a whole list of ne'er-do-wells condemned by the Rabbis: sectarians, apostates, informers, Epicureans, those who have denied the Torah, those who separate from the ways of the community, and those who have denied the resurrection of the dead. "Based on the tannaitic familiarity with Epicureanism discussed above... it is plausible that the Rabbis' disdain towards Epicureanism encompassed more than the single heresy of denial of divine providence."
The author states that "we may characterize the early Rabbis' understanding and use of the term. An 'apiqoros was a member of the missionizing Epicurean school of philosophy which, among other heresies or impieties, denied divine providence. ... Not much later, Rabbis were less sure of the meaning of the word 'apiqoros."
That gets us up to pp. 175-184. The remainder of the paper traces the use of the word in other texts, but also shows that the writers were less and less aware of what an acutal Epicurean was and rather more able to foist whatever heresies they wanted onto the term 'apiqoros including disrespect for the Torah or simple irreverence. But there is no denying the term originally referred to our philosophical forebears.
FYI
Sedley's articles and in the appendices to the DeLacy book "On Methods of Inference"
Cassius : Are those all linked somewhere on the forum site here?
Godfrey, absolutely! In a way this is my preparation for revisiting the rather difficult On Signs.
That text has been on my list for too long. Maybe your revisitation will spur me to try digging into it.
And the CC licensing is not revocable, per the CC site.
(It's a similar license under which I released the Menoikeus commentary. Mine has: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ )
They appear to have changed the license under which it's published:
Creative Commons:
Creative Common License - CC Creative Common License - BY Creative Common License - NC Creative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/creativelicenses
Don, regarding ἡ ἐπιμαρτύρησις et al., I know we have -ησις as a general suffix to form abstract nouns. But I feel that ἡ ῥῆσις "saying" "manner of speaking" must also part of the construction. I cannot quite tell right now if this is obviously there or if I am forcing it.
I could see that, but then ῥῆσις has the -σις abstract suffix. I think the -σις is just doing the work of "nouning" (to coin a clunky word) the μᾰρτῠρέω.
ῥῆσις: Etymology From stem ῥη- of εἴρω (eírō, “to say”) + -σις (-sis, abstract noun suffix).
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, μαρτυ^ρ-έω
Derived terms:
ἀντιμᾰρτῠρέω (antimarturéō)
ἀπομᾰρτῠρέω (apomarturéō)
δῐᾰμᾰρτῠρέω (diamarturéō)
εἰσμᾰρτῠρέω (eismarturéō)
ἐκμᾰρτῠρέω (ekmarturéō)
ἐπιμᾰρτῠρέω (epimarturéō)
κᾰτᾰμᾰρτῠρέω (katamarturéō)
προσμᾰρτῠρέω (prosmarturéō)
σῠμμᾰρτῠρέω (summarturéō)
ὑπομᾰρτῠρέω (hupomarturéō)
ψευδομᾰρτῠρέω (pseudomarturéō)
I think Philonides was the court advisor I was trying to think of:
And here's a paper my Dr. Fish:
And yes I fully realize I'm not responding to Peter Konstans 's specific questions yet. Patience 
Here's McConnell's paper on Academia.edu
Thanks, Bryan.
No great insights here from me tonight, but just linguistic trivia:
ἰδιοτήτος idiotetos > which is related to where English gets the word "idiot" meant in Ancient Greek more like - as Bryan notes from Sedley - individuality or being apart from the masses, a private person, one not engaged in public affairs. One who wasn't engaged in public affairs was an ἰδιώτης idiotes. It could also be used patronizingly for "ignorant person," from idios "one's own"
ἐπιμαρτυρήσεων and the rest > epi-martyreseon > note the root "martyr" in the Greek. That's the same word used for the Christians killed "for their faith" (debatable, but I'll let it slide). They were "witnesses" to their religion, they showed others how their religion made them act - even unto death. So, that idea of providing evidence is intrinsic to the Greek words with the root -martyr-, then you add on the prefixes and change the meaning.
Language is fun
or made any sort of exhortation about how people should best govern themselves
They did have thoughts on how those who govern should act.
There's a missing book of Epicurus titled Of Kingship.
Philodemus wrote On The Good King According to Homer.
There were Epicurean advisors to kings.
It seems to me they had specific ideas on how to govern but they would rather advise rulers than rule themselves.
