Moreover, St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than the
above-mentioned Church Fathers, espoused the view of the
Greek philosophers borrowing from the biblical Hebrews.
In previous articles I have supported
St. Clement of Alexandria’s view that Plato’s writings took their inspiration from the Hebrew Moses, and
St. Ambrose’s belief that Plato had learned from the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt; a belief that was initially taken up by St. Augustine, who added that
Greek philosophy generally derived from the Jewish Scriptures.
And, though St. Augustine later retracted his acceptance of St. Ambrose’s view, realising that it was chronologically impossible for Jeremiah (c. 600 BC) to have met Plato anywhere, considering the c. 400 BC date customarily assigned to Plato, I have, on the other hand, looked to turn this around by challenging the conventional dates.
From the Book of Jeremiah we learn that Jeremiah and Baruch went together to Egypt. So this Baruch, whom tradition also identifies as Zoroaster, would be a possible candidate to consider for St. Ambrose’s ‘Plato who was contemporaneous with Jeremiah in Egypt’.
Again, much of Plato’s most famous work, TheRepublic,with its themes of justice and righteousness, could have arisen, I suggest, from the intense dialogues of the books of Jeremiah and Job of identical themes.
Saint Justin Martyr
Moreover, St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than the above-mentioned Church Fathers, espoused the view of the Greek philosophers borrowing from the biblical Hebrews. And Justin Martyr too, had, like Plato, written an Apology,in Justin’s case also apparently (like Plato) in regard to a martyrdom. So we read:
Plato Stole his ideas from Moses: True or False ….
The belief that the philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by Christian Apologists of Gentile background who lived in the first four centuries of Christians.
My comment: I would like to take this a stage further.
that the supposed Athenian statesman and lawgiver, Solon, was in fact a Greek appropriation of Israel’s wise lawgiver, Solomon, so do I believe that the primary ‘Ionian’ and ‘Greek’ philosophers of antiquity were actually Greek appropriations of Hebrew sages and prophets.
Regarding the supposed “Father of Philosophy”, Thales, for instance, see my article:
Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy
Three key figures who presented this thesis are Justin Martyr “The most important second century apologist” {50. Grant 1973}, Titus Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria “the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher” (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens {Epiphs Haer, xxii.6}. Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of Caesarea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is on the arguments of the earliest of these writers, Justin Martyr. He represents the position of Christian apology in the middle of the second century, as opposed to the later Clement of Alexandria and the even later Eusebius of Caesarea.
In light of the stature and the credibility of these three Church Fathers even if the idea that Plato learned from Moses seems far fetched we would do well to take a closer look at the argument and the evidence presented by such men of stature. Justin was a philosopher who came from a pagan background. He issued from Shechem in Palestine. He was a marvelous scholar in his own right well read and well qualified to make informed judgments in the arena of philosophy.
Our purpose is to briefly look at the theses presented by Justin Martyr and to try to discern the plausibility of the thesis.
Justin Martyr and the line Plato took from Moses.
My comment on this section: If the great Plato is to be restored as a (perhaps composite) biblical sage, along the lines of characters e.g. my article:
as I think eventually he must be, then this would be not so much a case of Greeks plagiarising the Scriptures as of a biblical wise man (the original Plato) keeping alive the Mosaïc Law and Tradition.
The article continues with a biography of Justin Martyr:
Justin Martyr was a prolific second century Apologist. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (Shechem) in Samaria. Well known for the local Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and a temple built by Hadrian to Zeus Hypsistos. He later passed through Stoicism and the way of Aristotle’s disciples the Peripatetics and was rejected as unqualified to study Pythagoreanism and finally he met a Platonist with whom he advanced in his studies. To him the goal of Platonism was “the vision of God”. One day he met a Christian on the beach and was converted to the faith. He did not become a priest or bishop but took to teaching and defending the faith.
Text
He wrote many works and many more bear his name. However modern scholarship has judged that of the many works that bear his name only three are considered genuine. These are 2 Apologies and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho.
They are preserved in one manuscript of the year 1364 (Cod Par, gr. 450).
Language
Justin wrote in Greek, and right in the middle of the period of philosophy called Middle Platonism.
The book in which he outlines his thesis that Moses and the prophets were a source for the Greek Philosophers is his first Apology. It is dated to 155-157 BC and was addressed to “The Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caesar Augustus, and the sons Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius” Grant (52, 1973).
My comment: I would seriously contest these conventional dates for Imperial Rome, given my view that the so-called ‘Second’ Jewish revolt against Rome was (at least in part) the actual Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Greeks.
—————————————————————————————————
It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement
rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the son of the
Emperor whom he calls philosophers.
—————————————————————————————————
The article continues with the writings of Justin Martyr:
Context
Grant (1973) believes the reason which triggered the Apology was the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 AD and the injustice of it during the bishopric of Anicetus. Even as this martyrdom and its report may have spurred Justin on to write so it had been that it was on seeing the fortitude of the Christian martyrs which had disposed him favorably towards the faith (Ap 2.12.1). ….
In the Apology 1 Justin gives the reason for his writing
“I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused; my self being one of them” (Apology 1 chap).
The Apology 1 is divided into 60 chapters. The translation we are using is that of the Ante Nicene Fathers and can be seen at www.ccel.org
The topics covered are many. He starts in chapter 2 by demanding justice, he requires that before the Christians are condemned they should be given a fair trial to see if they have committed any crimes or not. They should not be condemned merely for being Christian. He covers many subjects including: the accusation Christians were Atheists, faith in God; the Kingdom of Christ; God’s service; demonic teachings; Christ’s teachings and heathen analogies to it; non Christian worship; magic; exposing children, the Hebrew prophets and their prophecies about Christ, types of prophetic words from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This brings us to about chapter 38.
At this point Justin begins to cover the issue of determinism and free will. He argues that although the future was prophesied it does not mean everything is determined according to fate and man has no responsibility for he has no choice. Rather he points to Moses revealing God’s choice to Adam “Behold before thy face are good and evil: choose the good”. (Apol 1 44) And he quotes lsaiah’s appeal to Israel to wash and be clean and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. The consequences of disobedience are that the sword would devour Israel. Justin picks up on the statement regarding the sword and argues that it is not a literal sword which is referred to but “the sword of God is a fire, of which those who choose to do wickedly will become the fuel” (Apol 1 44). Justin having appealed to Moses and Isaiah as a warning to the Roman rulers now appeals to one with whom they are more familiar, Plato the philosopher, to support his case that man is free to choose good or evil.
It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the son of the Emperor whom he calls philosophers.
And so, too, Plato, when he says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless” took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it.
For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories.
…. He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle” (Demos, 1927.vi) was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying “the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless (Aitia helomenou Theos d’ anaios) {Joann. Mdcccxlii, 224}” was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it {eipe}”.
[End of quote]
Plato and Job
The combined story of Job and his alter ego, Tobias, son of Tobit
And, as already implied, I believe that this biblical story has also had a huge influence upon ancient (supposedly Greco-Roman) philosophy, which, however, significantly alters the original version. For, whilst there can be a similarity in thought between Plato and, for example, the Book of Job, the tone may be quite different. Plato’s Republic, and his other dialogues such as Protagoras and Meno, brilliant though they may be in places, when compared with the intense atmosphere of the drama of the Book of Job, come across sometimes as a bit like a gentlemen’s discussion over a glass of port.
W. Guthrie may have captured something of this general tone in his Introduction toPlato.Protagorasand Meno (Penguin, 1968), when he wrote (p. 20, emphasis added):
… a feature of the conversation which cannot fail to strike a reader is its unbroken urbanity and good temper.The keynote is courtesy and forbearance, though these are not always forthcoming without a struggle. Socrates is constantly on the alert for the signs of displeasure on the part of Protagoras, and when he detects them, is careful not to press his point, and the dialogue ends with mutual expressions of esteem. ….
[End of quote]
Now compare this gentlemanly tone with Job’s ‘How long will you torment me, and break me in pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?’ (19:1-3), and Eliphaz’s accusations of the holy man: ‘Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities[which supposed types of injustice on the part of Job Eliphaz then proceeds to itemise]’ (22:5).
In Plato’s dialogues, by way of complete contrast, we get pages and pages of the following sort of amicable discussion as taken from The Republic (Bk. 2, 368-369):
[Socrates] ‘Justice can be a characteristic of an individual or of a community, can it not?’
[Adeimantus] ‘Yes’.
[Socrates] ‘And a community is larger than an individual?’
[Adeimantus] ‘It is”.
[Socrates] ‘We may therefore find that the amount of justice in the larger entity is greater, and so easier to recognize. I accordingly propose that we start our enquiry …’.
“I will rouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece”.
Zechariah 9:13
Tertullian: “… free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ
from the Academy of Plato.”
(Tertullian, De praescriptione, vii).
This last comment, by Tertullian, will become a kind of mantra for this article, though not properly according to the context of Tertullian, but according to the context of my historical revisions.
For, as one will read as the description of my site,
“Much of Western culture, mythology and religion has been appropriated from the cultures of the Fertile Crescent region, especially from the Hebrews (Jews)”.
whose description is the same, but with reference to Eastern culture, etc.
Now this description, as it applies to the west, basically encapsulates the phenomenon that is the history of ancient philosophy, that has been presented to us as being entirely Greco-Roman (Ionian-Italian), but which I intend to argue was actually Hebrew (Israelite/Jewish) and biblical.
Certainly the Fathers of the Church appreciated at least the seminal impact that the Hebrews had had upon Greco-Roman thinking, though without their having taken the extra step that I intend to take in this article, of actually recognising the most famous early western (supposedly) philosophers as being originally Hebrew.
To give just a few examples from the Fathers and the early eastern and western legends:
“According to Clement [of Alexandria], Plato plagiarized revelation from the Hebrews; this gave the Athenian’s highest ideas a flavor of divine authority in the estimation of Clement”. (http://www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm).
“… Aristoxenus in his book the Life of Pythagoras, as well as Aristarchus and Theopompus say that [Pythagoras] came from Tyre, Neanthes from Syria or Tyre, so the majority agree that Pythagoras was of barbarian origin (Strom. I 62, 2-3).
Aristobulus was among many philosophers of his day who argued that the essentials of Greek philosophy and metaphysics were derived from Jewish sources. Philosopher Numenius of Apamea echoes this position in his well known statement “What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?” (1.150.4) Aristobulus maintained, 150 years earlier than Philo, that not only the oldest Grecian poets, Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, etc., but also the most celebrated Greek thinkers, especially Plato, had acquired most of their wisdom from Jewish sages and ancient Hebrew texts (Gfrorer i. p. 308, also ii. 111-118) (Eusebius citing Aristobulus and Numenius Ev ix. 6, xi. 10).
The Arabic-Christian legends identify [the biblical] Baruch with the eastern sage, Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him.
Saint Ambrose (Ep. 34) “suggested that Plato was educated in Hebraic letters in Egypt by Jeremiah”.
Bahá’u’lláh states that the Greek philosopher Empedocles “was a contemporary” of King David, “while Pythagoras lived in the days of Solomon” (Cole, p. 31; Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, 145).
Some of these situations (e.g. Sirach influencing Heraclitus – thought to be centuries before Sirach – and Plato meeting Jeremiah, who presumably lived about a century and a half before Plato) are chronologically impossible, of course, in the present context of ancient history. However, in my revised scheme of historical philosophy, they may not be.
In this article I am going to take four of the key early, supposedly “Ionian” Greek and Italian, philosophers of antiquity, Thales, Heraclitus and Pythagoras (Ionian), and Empedocles (Sicilian), all prior to Socrates (hence ‘pre-Socratics’), and reveal what I believe to be their biblical prototype – of whom I claim these four were merely ghostly replicas, chronologically, ethnically and geographically misplaced.
Thales is most important as presumably having begun it all.
According to Bertrand Russell, “Western philosophy begins with Thales.”[2]
Thales of Miletus (c. 624 BCE – c. 546 BCE) was an ancient (pre-Socratic) Greek philosopher who is often considered the first philosopher and the father of Western philosophy. His approach to philosophical questions of course cannot compare to modern or even later Greek philosophers, however, he is the first known person to use natural explanations for natural phenomena rather than turning to supernatural world and his example was followed by other Greek thinkers who would give rise to philosophy both as a discipline and science.
Heraclitus is considered by some to have been the founder of metaphysics.
Heraclitus is in a real sense the founder of metaphysics. Starting from the physical standpoint of the Ionian physicists, he accepted their general idea of the unity of nature, but entirely denied their theory of being. The fundamental uniform fact in nature is constant change (πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει); everything both is and is not at the same time. He thus arrives at the principle of Relativity; harmony and unity consist in diversity and multiplicity. The senses are “bad witnesses” (κακοὶ μάρτυρες); only the wise man can obtain knowledge.
Pythagoras was thought to be the one who coined the term ‘philosopher’.
This most famous philosopher was born sometime between 600 and 590 B.C., and the length of his life has been estimated at nearly one hundred years. …. Pythagoras was said to have been the first man to call himself a philosopher; in fact, the world is indebted to him for the word philosopher. Before that time the wise men had called themselves sages, which was interpreted to mean those who know. Pythagoras was more modest. He coined the word philosopher, which he defined as one who is attempting to find out.
Empedocles was said to have first named the four elements (earth, air, fire and water).
Thus these were four very significant individuals in the received history of early philosophy!
Yet historians admit to knowing so little about them.
That is apparent from these quotes, respectively, (mainly) from the above sites:
Thales: “Not much is known about the philosopher’s early life, not even his exact dates of birth and death”.
Heraclitus: “Little is known about his early life and education, but he regarded himself as self-taught and a pioneer of wisdom”.
Pythagoras: “The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Pythagoras must have been one of the world’s greatest persons, but he wrote nothing, and it is hard to say how much of the doctrine we know as Pythagorean is due to the founder of the society and how much is later development. It is also hard to say how much of what we are told about the life of Pythagoras is trustworthy; for a mass of legend gathered around his name at an early date”. (Taken from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/pythagor/)
Empedocles: “Very little is known about his life”.
Given these stark admissions, it would not be surprising that the original version of each of these sages could have been lost in the mists of obscurity.
My purpose in this article will be to try to restore the original in relation to Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Empedocles {leaving aside at this stage the more important Socratics, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, whose proper identities will really need to be established}, and thereby to uncover the original artisans of wisdom, giving the precedence to Hebrew Hochmah (Wisdom) over Greek Sophia (from whence we get our word philo-sophy).
Why is it important to “free Jerusalem from Athens”,
to borrow Tertullian’s phrase?
Firstly, because (my belief) that the aforementioned great thinkers were Hebrews rather than Greeks.
And, secondly, because genuine wisdom thinking and writings could not have been generated by a thing so corrupt and perverse as pagan Greco-Roman culture.
To give just one strong example of its highly distorted nature
…. Philosophy was another area where the acceptance of homosexuality was obvious, and seemed to be representative of the thoughts of many people (or at least male thought) of the time. Most of the early philosophers seemed to thoroughly understand and discuss the actions pederasty and homosexuality, and Socrates … even described himself as being “experienced in the pursuit of men.” According to the dialogues of Plato – a student of Socrates – pederasty and homosexuality were a part of everyday life, at least for aristocrats.
Two of Plato’ s works, The Phaedrus and The Symposium, paint a brilliant picture of what the attitude toward pederasty was at the time. In the opening pages of The Phaedrus, Phaedrus and Socrates are discussing a speech that Lysias – a popular orator of the day – has written; a speech that was “…designed to win the favor of a handsome boy….” Socrates seems to understand why one would write a speech on this subject, and even states that man “cannot have a less desirable protector or companion than the man who is in love with him.” The Symposium goes into even greater detail about pederasty.
The setting is a symposium – a type of dinner party that only included males as guests, and had entertainment, wine, and discussion of politics and philosophy – in which several men are gathered and all give speeches about why a love of boys is a good thing. Phaedrus – the first to give his speech – states, For I can’t say that there is a greater blessing right from boyhood than a good lover or a greater blessing for a lover than a darling [young boy]. What people who intend to lead their lives in a noble and beautiful manner need is not provided by family, public honors, wealth, or anything else, so well as by love.
Pausanias – the second speaker – adds even more to this argument when he states Aphrodite only inspires love among men for young boys, and not women. Those inspired by Aphrodite are naturally drawn to the male because he is a stronger and more intelligent creature.
Socrates also comments on the importance of pederasty in his own life. He says, “My love for this fellow [Agathon- another member of the party who is a beautiful young boy] is not an insignificant affair.” Yet another member of the party, Alcibiades, also loves Agathon and tries to discredit Socrates when he says, “…Socrates is lovingly fixated on beautiful young men, is always around them – in a daze….” ….
[End of quote]
Gross impurity kills wisdom stone dead!
A genuine Christian perennial philosophy cannot properly be based upon corrupt pagan thinking and ethics, no matter how much the latter might have been enlightened by biblical wisdom. Hence, my purpose of re-orientating the philosophia perennis back in line with Hebrew wisdom (hochmah).
The question of who really were the original three sages who inspired the great philosophical triumvirate of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, is a most fascinating one.
And it is one that I should hope to answer with conviction in due course.
To achieve this should be made easier, at least chronologically, once I have secured the true identities of Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Empedocles, who apparently preceded the three ‘Socratics’ in time.
Now, this is how I suspect our four pre-Socratics stand in relation to real history (for I have already done previous work on this very subject):
Thales is, as I have argued in various articles now, the biblical Joseph of the Book of Genesis. See e.g. my article:
First philosopher, Thales, likely a Greek borrowing from Joseph of Egypt
His name ‘Thales” may derive from the semi-legendary sage Ptah-hotep in Egypt, who, like Joseph, lived to be 110 years of age, and who is thought to have inspired some of the biblical Proverbs.
Diogenes Laertius states that (“according to Herodotus and Douris and Democritus“) Thales’ parents were Examyes and Cleobuline, then traces the family line back to Cadmus, a prince of Tyre. Diogenes then delivers conflicting reports: one that Thales married and either fathered a son (Cybisthus or Cybisthon) or adopted his nephew of the same name; the second that he never married, telling his mother as a young man that it was too early to marry, and as an older man that it was too late. Plutarch had earlier told this version: Solon visited Thales and asked him why he remained single; Thales answered that he did not like the idea of having to worry about children. Nevertheless, several years later, anxious for family, he adopted his nephew Cybisthus.[7]
Unfortunately there is a complete absence of primary evidence for Thales, for (http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=2318): “No writing of his has come down to us; we have no primary sources”. It is even considered likely that he did not write anything at all. And this is where the problem lies. The real existence of Thales as an Ionian Greek of the C6th BC is wide open to doubt. By the time of the Greeks, the original sage, the biblical Joseph – as I believe – had mythologically drifted from Palestine to Ionia, from being a Hebrew to an Ionian Greek, and had been slid down the centuries to the tune of more than a millennium. As I wrote (Joseph as Thales):
…. To Thales is attributed a prediction in astronomy that was quite impossible for an Ionian Greek – or anyone else – to have estimated so precisely in the C6th BC. He is said to have predicted a solar eclipse that occurred on 28 May 585 BC during a battle between Cyaxares the Mede and Alyattes of Lydia [400]. This supposed incident has an especial appeal to the modern rationalist mind because it – thought to have been achieved by a Greek, and ‘marking the birthday of western science’ – was therefore a triumph of the rational over the religious. According to Glouberman, for instance, it was “… a Hellenic Götterdämerung, the demise of an earlier mode of thought” [450]. Oh really? Well, it never actually happened. O. Neugebauer [500], astronomer and orientalist, has completely knocked on the head any idea that Thales could possibly have foretold such an eclipse.
Heraclitus, who Saint Clement of Alexandria thought had been influenced by the biblical Sirach (i.e. Ecclesiasticus), may even originally have been this very Sirach. Thus I wrote:
Here occurs that same sort of chronological ‘difficulty’ (in a textbook context) with a Father of the Church as also in the case of Saint Ambrose’s conjecture (in De philosophia) that Plato had met Jeremiah in Egypt. Whilst, chronologically, this is an extraordinary statement by Saint Clement, considering that Sirach would be located centuries after Heraclitus, the presumed chronological problem may actually be due to the ignorance of the real identity of the supposedly ‘Greek’ philosopher. What if Heraclitus, whose special element was fire, were in fact the same person as the Hebrew Sirach(also known as “Siracides”, hence Heraclitus?), who wrote of fire (Sirach 51:3, 4): “You liberated me … from the stifling heat which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled …”. The ancient concept of Divine Wisdom, as written of by Sirach, was supposedly absorbed by Heraclitus, who, I think, may have been but a pale Greek version of the biblical scribe.
Pythagoras, based on traditions of the great antiquity of his doctrines; the possibility that he may even have hailed from Syria (Tyre) and was hence a barbarian (that is, a non-Greek); his being circumcised; his concerns with dietary laws; his abstention from illicit sex; and the very Egyptian looking first syllable in his name, Pyth (= Ptah?); was probably once again the biblical Joseph.
We have already considered the lack of sure knowledge about him.
Pythagoras … spent his early years on the island of Samos, off the coast of modern Turkey. At the age of forty, however, he emigrated to the city of Croton in southern Italy and most of his philosophical activity occurred there. Pythagoras wrote nothing, nor were there any detailed accounts of his thought written by contemporaries. By the first centuries [BC], moreover, it became fashionable to present Pythagoras in a largely unhistorical fashion as a semi-divine figure, who originated all that was true in the Greek philosophical tradition, including many of Plato’s and Aristotle’s mature ideas. A number of treatises were forged in the name of Pythagoras and other Pythagoreans in order to support this view.
There maya be some parallels here to the historically rather dubious genius Imhotep of Egypt, “a semi-divine figure”:
Imhotep was an ancient Egyptian genius who achieved great success in a wide variety of fields. Inventor of the pyramid, author of ancient wisdom, architect, high priest, physician, astronomer, and writer, Imhotep’s many talents and vast acquired knowledge had such an effect on the Egyptian people that he became one of only a handful of individuals of nonroyal birth to be deified, or promoted to the status of a god.
Clement of Alexandria … is not only a good source of the Pythagorean doctrines, which enhance our knowledge of the Pythagorean tradition.
….
What did Clement know about Pythagoras and the Pythagorean Tradition?
Pythagoras in Clement’s eyes was an ancient sage and religious reformer, a God-inspired transmitter of the spiritual tradition, which itself ascends to the most antique times.
…
Pythagoras from Samos, – says Clement, – was a son of Mnesiarchus, as Hippobotus says. But Aristoxenus in his book the Life of Pythagoras, as well as Aristarchus and Theopompus say that he came from Tyre, Neanthes from Syria or Tyre, so the majority agree that Pythagoras was of barbarian origin (Strom. I 62, 2-3).
He was a student of Pherecydes … and his floruit falls on the time of dictatorship of Polycrates, around the sixty-second Olympiad [ci. 532-529 BC]. …. But the real teacher of his was certain Sonchis, the highest prophet of the Egyptians. …. Pythagoras traveled a lot and even underwent circumcision in order to enter in the Egyptian shrines to learn their philosophy.
….
Clement is inclined to think that Pythagoras composed some writings himself, but gave them out as if they contained ancient wisdom, revealed to him.
….
Pythagoras in no means was a mere transmitter, he himself was a sage, prophet and the founder of a philosophic school: The great Pythagoras applied himself ceaselessly to acquiring knowledge of the future (Strom. I 133, 2). ….
Imagine now, that we are students at Clement’s Catechetical School and listen to his lectures. What shall we learn about Pythagoras (given that Clement is the only source of our knowledge)?
Clement would tell us that Pythagoras was a perfect example of righteousness ….
Pythagoras instructed to clean one’s body and soul before entering the road by means of strictly drawn dietary regulations. …. One of the reasons for this is that the burden of food prevents soul from ‘rising to higher levels of reality’ …. Maintaining self-control and a right balance in everything is therefore absolutely necessary for everybody entering the path of knowledge: ‘A false balance (zuga) do/lia) is an abomination in the Lord’s eye, but a just weight is acceptable to him.’ (Prov. 11.1) It is on the basis of this that Pythagoras warns people ‘Step not over a balance (zugo)n mh) u(perbai/nein)’. ….
It is said that the Pythagoreans abstain from sex. [Joseph and the wife of Potiphar?] My own view, on the contrary, is that they married to produce children, and kept sexual pleasure under control thereafter.
…. This is why they place a mystic on eating beans, not because they lead to belching, indigestion, and bad dreams, or because a bean has the shape of a human head, as in the line To eat beans is like eating your parents’ heads (Orphica, fr. 291 Kern), – but rather because eating beans produces sterility in women.
….
Pythagoras advised us to take more pleasure in the Muses than in the Sirens, teaching the practice of all form of wisdom without pleasure. ….
As I commented above: Gross impurity kills wisdom stone dead!
The goal of the Pythagoreans consists therefor not in abstaining from doing certain important things, but rather in practicing of abstinentia from harmful and useless things in order to attain to a better performance in those which are really vital. As in the case with marriage (above), Clement generally disagrees with those who put too much force on self-restriction. He has a good reason for doing this, as we shall see later whilst analyzing Clement’s critique of some Gnostic ideas that are closely connected with the Pythagorean problematic. Pythagorean abstinentia should be based on reason and judgment rather than tradition or a rite. Koinwni/a kai) sugge/neia unites not only all mankind, but also all living beings with the gods. …. This alone is a sufficient reason for abstinence from flesh meat.
Empedocles, though considered to have lived in the C5th BC and to have nonetheless been the first to have named the four elements, was way behind the Book of Genesis in this supposed achievement of his.
and (he) called – God – to the dry ground – earth and to collection – the waters – (he) called – seas – and (he) saw – God – for+good
The construction of this verse is familiar. See in particular this post on Genesis 1:4 regarding “seeing.”
Genesis 1:10 marks the last time in the creation narrative that God himself names things. Take a look at what he’s named: day and night (in 1:5), sky (in 1:8), earth and sea (here in 1:10). Are these meant to correspond to the four primal elements fire, air, earth, and water? Fire is perhaps a leap from day and night. But if the correspondence is intentional, God is shown to be the creator and fashioner of what was understood to be the substances from which everything else was formed until relatively recent history.
This is a pretty nifty observation, but it presents a small challenge to the historical-grammatical interpretation of Genesis 1. The problem is that the four primal elements idea is normally attributed to a Greek philosopher by the name of Empedocles who lived in the 5th century B.C. – about 1,000 years after Moses and the traditional date for the recording of Genesis. The Wellhausen hypothesis posits later dates for Genesis but is still 400 years before Empedocles.
We show our Western bias however when we focus on the Greeks. The Egyptians actually had a similar concept …. The Egyptian idea was embodied in a group of deities called the Ogdoad, and the four primordial substances were darkness, air, the waters, and infinity/eternity.
All of this is to say that even from a purely secular standpoint it is not unreasonable to grant that the Greek primal elements concept existed in the Ancient Near East well before the Greeks. ….
[End of quote]
Though I am no great fan of Sigmund Freud’s, I think that he was well on the right track when he considered Empedocles to have been a ‘reincarnation of Moses’.
…. Either they should have such an abundance of these metals, that they could if they would have made their shoes of them; but that is not usual; though it is said of Empedocles (g) the philosopher, that he wore shoes of brass”. ….
Moses had to remove his sandals on the fiery mountain (Exodus 3:5): “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” From the following quote we learn about Empedocles’ sandal on the fiery mountain.
Moses climbed Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments and ascended Mount Nebo (Jordan) to gaze on the land he would never reach. …. Empedocles, the ancient Greek philosopher, climbed the active volcano Mount Etna on Sicily and leaped into the flaming crater in 430 BC. According to legend, he intended to become an immortal god; the volcano ejected one of his sandals turned to bronze by the heat.
“The character of Empedocles [Hölderlin’s The Death of Empedocles] is in some ways a synthesis of Moses and Aaron: his wisdom and mystical powers of leadership both separate him from the people and lead them to offer him the title of King. The contradiction in this dilemma, however, leads him to spurn the people for their lack of comprehension and ultimately to his own destruction—the plunge into the volcano rather than life in exile”.
How did all of this happen?
We well know that when a story is related to someone else and then passed on from one to another that it soon becomes quite changed and different even amongst those living in close time and proximity.
How much more (a fortiori) would change occur when incidents and teachings pertaining to ancient peoples were passed down the centuries and across the continents!
…. The Hebrew wisdom would have filtered through to the Greeks last, only after having passed through pagan Canaanite-Phoenicia (entrepôts such as Ugarit, Byblos and Tyre) in the west, or Babylon in the east, then on to the Ionian Greeks in the north, or south, to Alexandria, and lastly to the mainland Greeks. It later evolved into the more systematised form of philosophy that we know today, though not necessarily even then at the hands of Greeks. For example, the Maccabean Jewish priest, Aristobulus (2 Maccabees 1:10), was supposed to have written a book on philosophy, arguing, for the benefit of the Macedonian ‘Greeks’ – most notably king Ptolemy himself – “that the essentials of Greek philosophy and metaphysics were derived from Jewish sources. Aristobulus maintained that not only the oldest [supposedly] Grecian poets, Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, etc., but also the most celebrated Greek thinkers, especially Plato … had acquired most of their wisdom from Jewish sages and ancient Hebrew texts”. ….
Philosophy and Theology 