Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



2439
Clement Of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, 2.7-2.8
NaN
NaN


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

8 results
1. Athenagoras, Apology Or Embassy For The Christians, 17 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

17. An apologist must adduce more precise arguments than I have yet given, both concering the names of the gods, to show that they are of recent origin, and concerning their images, to show that they are, so to say, but of yesterday. You yourselves, however, are thoroughly acquainted with these matters, since you are versed in all departments of knowledge, and are beyond all other men familiar with the ancients. I assert, then, that it was Orpheus, and Homer, and Hesiod who gave both genealogies and names to those whom they call gods. Such, too, is the testimony of Herodotus. My opinion, he says, is that Hesiod and Homer preceded me by four hundred years, and no more; and it was they who framed a theogony for the Greeks, and gave the gods their names, and assigned them their several honours and functions, and described their forms. Representations of the gods, again, were not in use at all, so long as statuary, and painting, and sculpture were unknown; nor did they become common until Saurias the Samian, and Crato the Sicyonian, and Cleanthes the Corinthian, and the Corinthian damsel appeared, when drawing in outline was invented by Saurias, who sketched a horse in the sun, and painting by Crato, who painted in oil on a whitened tablet the outlines of a man and woman; and the art of making figures in relief (κοροπλαθική) was invented by the damsel, who, being in love with a person, traced his shadow on a wall as he lay asleep, and her father, being delighted with the exactness of the resemblance (he was a potter), carved out the sketch and filled it up with clay: this figure is still preserved at Corinth. After these, D dalus and Theodorus the Milesian further invented sculpture and statuary. You perceive, then, that the time since representations of form and the making of images began is so short, that we can name the artist of each particular god. The image of Artemis at Ephesus, for example, and that of Athenâ (or rather of Athelâ, for so is she named by those who speak more in the style of the mysteries; for thus was the ancient image made of the olive-tree called), and the sitting figure of the same goddess, were made by Endœus, a pupil of D dalus; the Pythian god was the work of Theodorus and Telecles; and the Delian god and Artemis are due to the art of Tect us and Angelio; Hera in Samos and in Argos came from the hands of Smilis, and the other statues were by Phidias; Aphrodité the courtezan in Cnidus is the production of Praxiteles; Asclepius in Epidaurus is the work of Phidias. In a word, of not one of these statues can it be said that it was not made by man. If, then, these are gods, why did they not exist from the beginning? Why, in truth, are they younger than those who made them? Why, in truth, in order to their coming into existence, did they need the aid of men and art? They are nothing but earth, and stones, and matter, and curious art.
2. Clement of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, 1.6, 2.1, 2.4, 2.8-2.11, 2.13, 3.4-3.5, 3.8-3.13 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 5.5, 7.12 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4. Hermas, Mandates, 4.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.24. While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker, attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him. There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.
6. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.24. While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker, attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him. There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.
7. Tertullian, On Idolatry, 14-15, 3, 8, 11 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

11. If we think over the rest of faults, tracing them from their generations, let us begin with covetousness, a root of all evils, 1 Timothy 6:10 wherewith, indeed, some having been ensnared, have suffered shipwreck about faith. 1 Timothy 1:19 Albeit covetousness is by the same apostle called idolatry. In the next place proceeding to mendacity, the minister of covetousness (of false swearing I am silent, since even swearing is not lawful )- is trade adapted for a servant of God? But, covetousness apart, what is the motive for acquiring? When the motive for acquiring ceases, there will be no necessity for trading. Grant now that there be some righteousness in business, secure from the duty of watchfulness against covetousness and mendacity; I take it that that trade which pertains to the very soul and spirit of idols, which pampers every demon, falls under the charge of idolatry. Rather, is not that the principal idolatry? If the selfsame merchandises - frankincense, I mean, and all other foreign productions - used as sacrifice to idols, are of use likewise to men for medicinal ointments, to us Christians also, over and above, for solaces of sepulture, let them see to it. At all events, while the pomps, while the priesthoods, while the sacrifices of idols, are furnished by dangers, by losses, by inconveniences, by cogitations, by runnings to and fro, or trades, what else are you demonstrated to be but an idols' agent? Let none contend that, in this way, exception may be taken to all trades. All graver faults extend the sphere for diligence in watchfulness proportionably to the magnitude of the danger; in order that we may withdraw not only from the faults, but from the means through which they have being. For although the fault be done by others, it makes no difference if it be by my means. In no case ought I to be necessary to another, while he is doing what to me is unlawful. Hence I ought to understand that care must be taken by me, lest what I am forbidden to do be done by my means. In short, in another cause of no lighter guilt I observe that fore-judgment. In that I am interdicted from fornication, I furnish nothing of help or connivance to others for that purpose; in that I have separated my own flesh itself from stews, I acknowledge that I cannot exercise the trade of pandering, or keep that kind of places for my neighbour's behoof. So, too, the interdiction of murder shows me that a trainer of gladiators also is excluded from the Church; nor will any one fail to be the means of doing what he subministers to another to do. Behold, here is a more kindred fore-judgment: if a purveyor of the public victims come over to the faith, will you permit him to remain permanently in that trade? Or if one who is already a believer shall have undertaken that business, will you think that he is to be retained in the Church? No, I take it; unless any one will dissemble in the case of a frankincense-seller too. In truth, the agency of blood pertains to some, that of odours to others. If, before idols were in the world, idolatry, hitherto shapeless, used to be transacted by these wares; if, even now, the work of idolatry is perpetrated, for the most part, without the idol, by burnings of odours; the frankincense-seller is a something even more serviceable even toward demons, for idolatry is more easily carried on without the idol, than without the ware of the frankincense-seller. Let us interrogate thoroughly the conscience of the faith itself. With what mouth will a Christian frankincense-seller, if he shall pass through temples, with what mouth will he spit down upon and blow out the smoking altars, for which himself has made provision? With what consistency will he exorcise his own foster-children, to whom he affords his own house as store-room? Indeed, if he shall have ejected a demon, let him not congratulate himself on his faith, for he has not ejected an enemy; he ought to have had his prayer easily granted by one whom he is daily feeding. No art, then, no profession, no trade, which administers either to equipping or forming idols, can be free from the title of idolatry; unless we interpret idolatry to be altogether something else than the service of idol-tendence.
8. Anon., Epistle To Diognetus, 4



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
adaptation Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
ascesis, ascetism Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
athenagoras Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
bath Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
biblical Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
blessings, divine, benefactions Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
church Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
church fathers Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 87
city, civic life context/religion Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
clement of alexandria Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80, 82, 87
clothing Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
codes, family, sexuality, hair Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
cyprian Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
desires, attitude towards Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
discussion Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
doors, entrances Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
drunkenness Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
education, agonistic model Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
elite Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
family, household Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
food Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87
fornication Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80, 82, 87
god Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
gods Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80, 82
guide Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87
happiness Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
hebrew Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
idol/s Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80, 82, 87
immorality Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
israel Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
justin Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
law Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
marcianus aristides Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 87
meals Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87
meat Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82, 87
methodology Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
mind Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
montanist/montanism Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87
musonius rufus Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
nature Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
parallels, n Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
participation Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
paul Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87
reason, faculty Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
rhetoric Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
rome, empire Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
rules Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
self-care Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
self-image, gods image/humans Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
sin/sinner Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 82
social Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87
sophists Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
stoicism, stoic views Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
symbol Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
telos Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
temperance Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
tranquility Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
veneration Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80
virtue' Rüpke and Woolf, Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century CE (2013) 73
worship Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 80, 82
xerophagy Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 87