The following comes from:
M. David Litwa, Carpocrates,
Marcellina, and Epiphanes: Three Early Christian Teachers of Alexandria and
Rome (Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World; London: Routledge,
2022), 143-46
Text and
translation
|
Irenaeus, AH 1.25.6 |
Ref. 7.32.8 |
Epiphanius, Pan. 27.6.9-10 |
|
Et imagines quasdam
quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent,
dicentes formam Christi factam a Pilato illo in tempore in quo fuit Iesus cum
hominibus. Et has coronant, et proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi
philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae et Platonis, et Aristotelis
et reliquorum et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes
faciunt. |
καὶ εἰκόνας δὲ κατασκευάζουσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
λέγοντες ὑπὸ Πιλάτου τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ γενῆσθαι. |
9. ἔχουσι δὲ εἰκόνας ἐνζωγράφους διὰ χρωμάτων, ἀλλὰ
καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου καὶ λοιπῆς ὕλης, ἅτινα ἐκτυπώματα φασιν εἶναι
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ταῦτα ὑπὸ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γεγενήσθαι, τουτέστιν τὰ ἐκτυπώματα
τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὅτε ἐνεδήμει τῷ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένει. 10. κρύβδην δὲ τὰς
τοιαύτας ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ φιλοσόφων τινῶν, Πυθαγόρου καὶ Πλάτωνος καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους
καὶ λοιπῶν, μεθ’ ὧν φιλοσόφων καὶ ἕτερα ἐκτυπώματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τιθέασιν, ἱδρύσαντές
τε προσκ- υνοῦσι καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιτελοῦσι μυστήρια. στήσαντες γὰρ ταύτας τὰς
ἐικόνας τὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔθη λοιπὸν ποιοῦσι. τίνα δέ ἐστιν ἐθνῶν ἔθη ἀλλ’ ἤ
θυσίαι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα; |
|
They have certain images, some painted, some made from other
materials, claiming that the representation of Christ was made by Pilate when
Jesus lived among people. They also crown these images, and set them up with
the images of the world’s philosophers, for instance with the images of
Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and others, and they pay the other respects
accorded to them just as the Gentiles do. |
They also manufacture images of Christ, claiming that they were made
by Pilate during his time. |
They have images painted with colors, though some are of gold,
silver, and other material. These, they say, are figures of Jesus made by
Pontius Pilate—that is, figures of the same Jesus when he sojourned among
humankind. They have such (figures) in secret, but also of certain
philosophers—Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest. They place still
other figures of Jesus with these philosophers. They set (them) up and
worship them, performing the mysteries of the Gentiles. For having set up
these statues, they do the remaining customs of the Gentiles. What are these
Gentiles customs but sacrifices and the other things? |
Commentary
The plural habent
in Irenaeus seems to refer to the followers of Marcellina. These Christians
venerated images (εἰκόνες/imagines) of Jesus, a word which might be
translated “icons.” The word is significant, because Greek speakers could
distinguish between an official cult image honored in a temple (ἄγαλμα)—what
early Christians polemically called an “idol” (εἴδωλον)—from the image of a
benefactor or founder set up in a marketplace or private setting. The
Carpocratian images were apparently painted pictures and/or figurines made of
various materials. Epiphanius extrapolated that the materials were silver and
gold, apparently to highlight that the function of the icons as cult statues.
These images were
thought to go back to a representation “made” by Pontius Pilate, the Roman
governor who, according to the gospels, condemned Jesus to death. Presumably we
can extrapolate that Pilate had a likeness made, not that he was himself the
artist. We can only speculate why, for the Carpocratians, Pilate would have
wanted a likeness of Jesus. According to developing Christian legend, Pilate
recognized the significance of Jesus and effectively became a Christian. One
suspects that, for these Carpocratians, Pilate recognized the greatness of
Jesus and so wanted him memorialized. The Refutator’s verb κατασκευάζουσι,
likely with a pejorative nuance (“fabricate”/“concoct”) makes it seem as if the
Carpocratians crafted their own images and only claimed these images went back
to the time of Pilate.
According to
Irenaeus, Carpocratians crowned their icons of Jesus, along with the statues of
other philosophers. Keeping busts or images of the great philosophers was an
established practice in Rome. Reportedly, the emperor Marcus Aurelius (reigned
161–180 CE) kept golden images of his teachers in his household shrine (in
larario, SHA Marcus 3.5). Likewise, we are told that the emperor
Alexander Severus (reigned 222–235 CE) venerated a little statue of Jesus among
deified emperors and sages like Apollonius of Tyana, Orpheus, and Abraham.
There were also non-cultic uses of such images. The busts of philosophers could
be used simply to decorate one’s personal library (Lucian, Nigrinus 3).
We do not know where Carpocratians set up their images of Jesus, Pythagoras,
and Plato. Were they present in Marcellina’s urban home or in a suburban villa?
Were they in some sort of lararium or household shrine? There is of course
abundant archaeological evidence for household images found all throughout
Greece, Italy, and western Europe.
We would also
like to know how Jesus was portrayed. In the company of philosophers, evidently
he looked like a philosopher as well. One might hypothesize the presence of a
beard, a philosopher’s cloak (pallium) with perhaps a scroll in hand.
Tertullian refers to a mock image, presumably of Jesus, of a donkey-headed “god
of the Christians” in a toga with a scroll in hand (Nat. 1.14.1; Apol.
16.12).
Against
Epiphanius, Carpocratians do not seems to have kept their icon secret
(κρύβδην). The images were known even to their enemies. It is misleading,
moreover, to assimilate the Carpocratian veneration of images to Greek
“mysteries,” which were different and more complex religious phenomena. If
“sacrifices” were performed for the images, we might hypothesize the burning of
incense and the sprinkling of flower petals. Irenaeus mentioned crowning,
evidently with a wreathe or bouquet of flowers. Apuleius of Madaura (about
124–170 CE) had a statue of a god among his books to whom on holidays he burned
incense and poured undiluted wine (Apol. 63.2).
There is an
interesting analogy for this kind of veneration in the Acts of John (roughly
contemporary with Marcellina’s movement in Rome). This text presents Lycomedes,
a man resurrected by the apostle John, venerating John’s portrait with crowns,
little altars, and lamps. When John himself sees these things, he remarks that
Lycomedes lives as a Gentile (ἐθνικῶς ζῶντα). Lycomedes replies that for him,
John is a “god,” since John had raised Lycomedes and his wife from the dead.
Lycomedes adds: “If one must, after God, call our human benefactors gods, you
are the one painted in the picture, and you I crown, kiss, and venerate since
you have become a beneficent guide to me” (Acts John 27). The connection
of deity and benefaction was firmly established in Mediterranean culture. If
Carpocratians viewed Jesus as their benefactor, it was in the sense that he had
modeled for them a new way of righteous living in triumph over false laws,
lesser powers, and human passions.
It seems
tendentious to say that Carpocratians, because they venerated images, had “a
great tolerance for pagan religious rites.” The Christians led by Marcellina
would not have considered their rites “pagan.” Heresiologists make this claim,
but they were involved in a project of social and theological ostracizing.
Image veneration was of course widespread in the Mediterranean world (Porphyry,
Abst. 2.16.5); yet Carpocratians, among many other Christians, were
capable of making adjustments to their practices which, to their minds at
least, brought the rites into the framework of Christian worship.
It was apparently
important that the Carpocratian depiction of Jesus be accurate. Pilate himself
was invoked apparently to ensure the artistic accuracy of the model (whether
the model survived is not clear).
As for the image
of Aristotle, it seems to be an outlier among Pythagoras and Plato. We detect
no specifically Peripatetic influence on Carpocratians. Perhaps heresiologists
were extrapolating, as was common. Augustine, following a summary of Epiphanius
(Anaceph. II.27.4), added that Carpocratians had images of Paul and
Homer as well. This is a good indication that heresiologists lacked specific
information. Perhaps the tradition about Paul grew from an awareness that
Carpocratians like Epiphanes employed Paul’s letters.
By placing Jesus
among the philosophers, Carpocratians probably felt that they were exalting
Jesus by giving him his rightful place among the intellectual and spiritual
titans of the time. Justin Martyr, by analogy, lauded Socrates as a man who
knew the Logos and tried to drive out demons from humankind. By venerating
Christ along with Pythagoras and Plato, Marcellinians were not necessarily
making Christ and these philosophers equal. A ranking system could have been in
place through the bestowal of a special crown, or the giving of special
sacrifices in honor of Christ.
The Carpocratian
Christ was, in all likelihood, placed in the mold of a philosopher, but he was
more than a philosopher. Salvation, after all, did not come through Pythagoras
or Plato, even if their souls were considered to be wise and more purely
divine. Jesus’s soul was the only one explicitly mentioned as strong enough to
recall the heavenly vision it had seen in its preexistent state; it was the
only soul righteous and wise enough to reject human laws and follow higher,
divine principles. If Pythagoras and Plato were considered comparable sages
(perhaps forerunners of Jesus), Jesus still had pride of place in the
Carpocratian system.
