Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by MrMacSon »

One of the greatest puzzles of the gospel stories is why? They are not - cannot be - historical, but are literary and thus must be seen in their contemporary, literary context.

Though I identify Bardaisan, named for the Daisan river in Edessa (now in southern Turkey), as the probable Source Q, the overwhelming character of the gospels as parody must be explained. (They are parody because they are replete with parodies of Messianic Jews and Messianic Judaism of the Second Temple period, especially of the messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the messiah who led the Jews in the Third (and final) Jewish-Roman War.)

What, who could have inspired Bardaisan to have written in parody? I think probably here: Lucian the Syrian ....

Lucian and Bardaisan match well in terms of ethnicity, culture and brilliance, and with the former writing shortly before the latter, Lucian provides the recipe and style for the New Testament tales ...

Well, whether right, or wrong, the idea of parody has its origin somewhere and it is definitely post-Antinous and post the Third Jewish-Roman War ...

http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot ... l?spref=tw

"To know from where "Jesus Christ" appears eventually, we must look at the stone-dead Antinous full on.

".. Antinous was Hadrian's Apollo. From my last [post], Hadrian's catamite at Bethlehem: “We lament Adonis under the earth (chthonios), / Whom we formerly called Antinous.” (the Citharoedic Hymn of Curium, written in the doorway of the temple of Apollon on the island of Cyprus.)

500px-Antinous_Osiris_Louvre_Ma433compressed.jpg
500px-Antinous_Osiris_Louvre_Ma433compressed.jpg (25.47 KiB) Viewed 3641 times
Antinous as Osiris, wearing the nemes and the uraeus (marble); the nose, mouth, left part of the face and major part of the bust
are modern restorations. From the villa of Hadrian in Tivoli.

"The resurrection of Antinous is an important, intermediary step along the path from Isis Chrest, to the resurrection of the living Cleopatra VII as Isis, and the resurrection of IS XP/Is Chrest in the gospel tales. The origin is in the pharaonic Isis Myth.

"The Emperor Augustus built a temple at Dendur (50 miles south of Aswan) to commemorate two deified Nubian brothers - Pediese ("he whom Isis has given") and Pihor ("he who belongs to Horus") - chosen by the Nile god Hapy for deification by drowning. (Two brothers, to follow the twin motif, starting with Castor and Pollux.) Hadrian's deification of Antinous follows this religious concept.

"Some historians have tried to weave a mythology around both Hadrian as emperor, and his sacrifice of Antinous; I will not bother to repeat them - just read any respectable history book and there they are - so let me add some facts.
  • Though we are told how emperors were deified after death, this is not a rule. Hadrian was deified whilst emperor; temples were dedicated to the living Hadrian in 91 cities.
  • On his second grand tour of his eastern empire during 128-132, Hadrian tied his own name to Zeus when he built a temple to Jupiter in his new city of Aelia Capitolina, atop the ruins of Jerusalem.
  • Midway through 130, Hadrian entered Egypt via the River Nile; according to Thorsten Opper, based on good sources, on 22 October the traditional annual festival of the Nile was being held at Hermopolis; part of this festival commemorated the death and rebirth of Osiris in the Nile on 24 October; Antinous died on this day in October 130 CE.
  • Though Roman sources suggest the sacrifice, modern historians need to equivocate; we need not do this, for the sacrifice of Antinous and his resurrection as Osiris-Antinous (Osirantinoo/Osirantinous) is obvious.
"Churches, cathedrals and monasteries began appearing soon after, within and atop these 'pagan' sites in Egypt. They are assumed to be Christian, based on their Ptolemaic symbols, whereas we now know that when such early places of worship name their divine man, it is never "Jesus Christ", but "Is Chrest". They are all Chrestian."

http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot ... l?spref=tw
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:39 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by MrMacSon »

.
In his blog-post titled HADRIAN'S CATAMITE AT BETHLEHEM, John Bartram says
Restorers have been working on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the refreshed mosaics have attracted some attention.

Let's look at the deepest layer, the Grotto.
He then quotes the Church of the Nativity entry
First-century holy site (c. 4–6 – 327 AD)
The holy site, known as the Grotto, that the Church of the Nativity sits atop, is today associated with the cave in which the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is said to have occurred. In 135, Hadrian is said to have had the Christian site above the Grotto converted into a worship place for Adonis, the Greek god of beauty and desire.[6][7] A father with the Church of the Nativity, Jerome, noted before his death in 420 that the holy cave was at one point consecrated by the heathen to the worship of Adonis, and that a pleasant sacred grove was planted there in order to wipe out the memory of Jesus.[6] Although some modern scholars dispute this argument and insist that the cult of Adonis-Tammuz originated the shrine and that it was the Christians who took it over, substituting the worship of Jesus,[8] the antiquity of the association of the site with the birth of Jesus is attested by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165 ), who noted in his Dialogue with Trypho that the Holy Family had taken refuge in a cave outside of town:
  • But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.(chapter LXXVIII).
Additionally, the Greek philosopher Origen of Alexandria (185 - c. 254) wrote:
  • In Bethlehem the cave is pointed out where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And the rumor is in those places, and among foreigners of the Faith, that indeed Jesus was born in this cave who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. (Contra Celsum, book I, chapter LI).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of ... _327_AD.29

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References cited
  • 6. Giuseppe Ricciotti, Vita di Gesù Cristo, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana (1948) p. 276 n.
    7. Maier, Paul L. "The First Christmas: The True and Unfamiliar Story." 2001
    8. Marcello Craveri, The Life of Jesus, Grove Press (1967) pp. 35–37
Bartram then says -
The problem with those sources is that they appear only in the medieval textual tradition; not one - and not one author - exists at all in the cultural layers claimed. That is, the sources are fakes and the putative authors, fictional. The three references come from apologetics and are worthless. Well, the whole is near worthless.
Interestingly, the Church of the Nativity entry opens with
The Church of the Nativity is a basilica located in Bethlehem, West Bank. The church was originally commissioned in 327 by Constantine the Great and his mother Helena over the site that is still traditionally considered to be located over the cave that marks the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. The Church of the Nativity site's original basilica was completed in 339 and destroyed by fire during the Samaritan Revolts in the 6th century. A new basilica was built 565 by Justinian, the Byzantine Emperor, restoring the architectural tone of the original.[3]
How Constantine the Great and his mother Helena chose the site is not explained. The chronology would suggest Christianity has usurped the cult of Adonis or 'Adonai' rather than vice versa. And, of course, the notion that Jesus was born in a cave is contrary to the traditional biblical narrative.

Bartram notes
Even in the late 19th century, Sir James Frazer was able to state in his The Golden Bough (chapter 33) that the cult around the grotto was established long before the purported nativity; and so the first worshippers there were Adonis followers, not Christians ...

The grotto temple to Adonis was attacked and destroyed by Jews in the Third Jewish-Roman War (132-136), when Judaea was led by a messiah - Simon ben Kosiba - against the empire of Hadrian. This was a revolt against Chrestianity - a first-century cult of the imperial elite - at least as much as against Rome. The original Church of the Nativity is said to have been built in 339, atop the Grotto.

In chronological order for the grotto,
  • we perhaps have Adonis/Adonai, then Hadrian's Antinous-as-Adonis, then a Chrestian church above, and lastly Christ ..
“We lament Adonis under the earth (chthonios), / Whom we formerly called Antinous.” (the Citharoedic Hymn of Curium, written in the doorway of the temple of Apollon on the island of Cyprus.)

In this case, we may therefore be dealing with Adonis as a title (rather than name), for Adonis is connected with Adonai, “Lord” in Hebrew and used commonly in the New Testament. This example may not be unique, as scholars are argued how the 'Farnese Antinous' in Naples is Adonis.

The Bethlehem grotto therefore seems to me to contain a series of syncretisms, Greek, Greco-Roman, Chrestian and Christian, and as such, not untypical.

http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot ... lehem.html
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Though I identify Bardaisan, named for the Daisan river in Edessa (now in southern Turkey), as the probable Source Q, the overwhelming character of the gospels as parody must be explained.
That is a rather laconic identification. What about Bardaisan ties him to the hypothesized Q?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Though I identify Bardaisan, named for the Daisan river in Edessa (now in southern Turkey), as the probable Source Q, the overwhelming character of the gospels as parody must be explained.
That is a rather laconic identification. What about Bardaisan ties him to the hypothesized Q?
I agree. I found this in the comments section below another of Bartram's blog-posts - http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot ... stian.html -
John Bartram wrote:
.. when I've tried to describe Chrestianity, I've not done a very good job. So I'll try to do better here; one qualification: as this was never spelled out clearly at the time, I have to reconstruct and this is at least partly speculative.

In the early first century, when Chrestianity appears, it is probably worship of Isis Chrest. Isis worship was already spread across the empire; I think the Chrest element makes this a variety; I guess it comes directly from Cleopatra, when she declared herself Isis resurrected. This resurrection is the key to understanding, I think, and led to Antinous, then the gospel story.

I know of no sacred texts for this period - the first two centuries (more or less) CE.

Chrestianity was designed to protect monarchical power in the Roman provinces. This is the sole interest in Antonia Minor, for Augustus, then her family. The threat to these monarchical families was the nationalism associated with the messianic Judaism in Judea, supported in the east by Jews from Mesopotamia and Iran. The Jewish tithe poured westwards to the Temple, managed by the Herodian monarchy.

When Agrippa I came to power, he became a supporter of the Qumran community, known by various names e.g. Essenes. They sent missionaries to neighbouring states and gained conversions and support. This is what triggered Saul to gather a gang and attack them; he then pretended to convert in order to gain access to this community; as their missionary, he secretly built his own Church from with the culturally-Greek communities in Greece and the Levant.

In short, we have an Isis Chrest cult made up of elite Romans, culturally-Greek Jews in Alexandria (e.g. Philo, his brother the alabarch and his sons), some monarchies in the Levant, and their trusted freedmen and women. It is driven politically to oppose messianic Judaism.

Religions tend to develop as they grow. For Chrestianity, the impetus for the first big change came with the sacrifice of Antinous, the end of the messianic threat/victory over this, then the overthrow of the governor of Edessa, who loyalty was to the family descended from Izates, who is recognised as divine by the end of the 2nd century.

The best friend of the new king (Agbar the Great) was Bardaisan and as the 2nd century closes, he decides to justify his friend as king by composing what we call Source Q, the original gospel story.

Bardaisan wanted to explain how the overthrow of the (now) king's family in the early first century had been unjust. So he has two 'IS" characters, one a thief and one divine, on trial for treason; Bardaisan blames both the Romans and Jews for allowing the thief to go free, while the divine one goes to heaven. Just down the road from Edessa is Emesa; the hereditary high priests of the solar Baal temple have one of their women (Julia Domna) marry Severus, who becomes emperor. This Severan dynasty has numerous, strong women from Emesa. They don't like losing their religious glory to a minor king in Edessa, so they declare Bardaisan a criminal, then invite the king to Rome and kill him.

But the gospel story has got out, spreading across the Levant. We find it at Dura Europos and from there it spreads east to Mesopotamia and Iran. The emperor takes over the movement, so the School of Bardaisan remakes the gospel as imperial.

The Bardaisan gospel bounces back, as Mani sends his missionaries to Syria; they convert Zenobia, who breaks the eastern empire away from Rome. Her empire is crushed and she goes to live in Rome, where she talks with the ruling families. This leads to Constantine I, who adopts the Chi-Rho, becoming Chrestian. His mother is the legendary Helen and I think she owned Brading Villa on the Isle of Wight, with this half-man/half rooster:
Chrestianity is short on theology and big on power. Its rites are Greek Magic. The NT is made as a parody. Chrestian saints are soldiers and rich. They use Philo's work to expand the life of IS Chrest. Quite possibly the Eastern Empire is created to be Chrestian.

The original NT reflects the influence of Izates; the Shepherd of Hermas - which has his family in an important position - is dropped.

This is how it stays until the iconoclast wars and Arab Conquests. They change Chrest to Christ and remake Roman history so Christianity appears in the early first century with Jesus Christ and his apostles. Charles is ok with having the pontiff a pretend emperor, because right then, the bishop was very weak and Charles had the only army able to resist the Arabs.

In Chrestianity, the main religious buildings are baptisteries; the clergy are mainly hermits and ascetics. Christianity builds churches on and over the baptisteries; the saintly shrines, on flowing water - usually river heads - become churches, then cathedrals. The Holy Roman Empire formally unites Church and State, beginning the bargaining process of Church approval of the monarchy in return for worldly power - land, taxation, troops, courts and punishment.

Chrestianity is overtly magical, whereas Christianity pretends it is god-given.

Well, probably still not a good explanation - I must work on this.

So we see the religion in stages. Within Christianity today, we may still discern the Greek solar theology and Greek Magic, but it is now more obtuse and under layers. I see Christianity as still pagan - its god is just another divine man and just another trinity.
then
John Bartram wrote: I just remembered when I awoke this morn, the reasons for the Jewish revolts; these reasons, critiques of the Herodian monarchy, therefore describe Chrestianity in part. In sum, they add up to an abandonment of Jewish law (those of Noah and Moses); one accusation was incest and if you look at the full Herodian family tree, or read Josephus, you will see incest was common. Another accusation was abandonment of dietary laws. Another was bringing gentiles into the temple; this last was used by Saul to instigate the First Jewish-Roman War. The Pauline and Lukan works describe these Chrestian objections to Judaism.

Jewish society had been split by the invasion of Egypt and Judaea by the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes, into those who wanted to lived a culturally-Greek life, and those who insisted on following traditional Jewish norms. Simply, the former were the urban elite and the latter, rural conservatives. The Greek side lost and moved to Egypt; it became the basis of Jewish society in Alexandria; this included the family of Philo, his brother and his children. When the brother becomes the estate manager of Antonia Minor, they added this element to Chrestianity.

Therefore Chrestianity is both for Greek Magic and against observant Judaism, which in the early-first century is messianic. Saul set up his own Church - the Seven Churches - in order to promote his gentile religion. This is how Phrygia is Chrestian in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and how Chrestianity developed its own textual tradition - myths and legends.

The NT brings two separate traditions together - the gospels, began by Bardaisan and become imperial, and the Church of Saul (which we can probably call Marcionite).

This is how Chrestianity claims Jewish heritage, but this is the heritage of the Herodians, forced converts to Judaism. We can see it is imperial in a number of characteristics, such as relying on faith (which is unprovable) instead of obedience to law (which is testable in court). This stricture is imperial: do, worship what you want in private, make public display of your loyalty to the emperor. This is why the NT is full of commandments to obey your Lord and Master.
Philo stratus wrote:
we must distinguish between worship of Isis Chrest and the textual appearance, probably in the late 2nd century, of a 1st century character who is Jewish and the Son of God. The latter is a product of the fertile mind of the polymath Bardaisan. The former is Ptolemaic and perhaps the product of Cleopatra VII.

The Marcionite canon had to be adapted to accommodate the gospel story.
Philo stratus wrote:
Though I won't pretend to have the full answer to the differences, there is one I'd like to mention and it concerns their divine men.

First, and because Saul becomes a resurrected Paul, and a travelling miracle worker in the Greek cultural tradition, we must accept how the NT has two principal divine men. This is because they belong to the two, different textual traditions.

The difference I'd like to mention (and BTW I am a member of John's study team, so share quite a bit of the team's online presence) starts in the first century, when the only messiahs belong to the Essenes, the xenophobic, ultra-nationalist Jewish sect associated with the DSS. IS Chrest does not come into being until (a) Izates is made divine, and (b) Bardaisan creates him.

Ca 215, a bunch of divine men appear, some associated with divine twinship. Did this phenomena prompt Bardaisan, or was it a reaction? I don't know. My point is that IS Chrest does not exist in text until about then. We don't know of him in the 1st century, yet alone in the time of Antonia Minor.

So however Christianity relates to Chrestianity, for the first two centuries, there was no IS Chrest and even less, a Jesus Christ. That's a big difference. Chrestianity began with no divine man, but - if we are right - a divine woman, Cleopatra as Isis Chrest. Even if not her, there was no divine man in this cult and that remained so for two centuries.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: What about Bardaisan ties him to the hypothesized Q?
I posted the bit about Bardaisan as a side issue, without researching him.

My main focus was the time of Hadrian and the proposition that deification of Antinous might have prompted some theology concurrent to the development of Christianity. And to see if anything prompted a response from others here.

Bardaisan seems too late to be associated with Q.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardaisan

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bardesanes

    http://roger-pearse.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bardaisan

    http://syri.ac/bardaisan

    http://www.insula.com.au/ahrel/bardaisan.html --
    • "Bardaisan was an admired and effective teacher. He was called the “father” of Christian Syriac literature and hymnology (Stevenson, 1963:398) because of his 150 catchy madrâshêê. Wellesz (1967:8­9) indicates that there are three main forms of Syriac poetry, Memra, Madrâshê and Sogitha. Madrâshê, or teaching songs, as composed by Bardaisan, were strophic poems sung by a soloist and a choir responded at the end of each stanza with the same phrase. They were the forerunner of the Byzantine kontakion.

      "Bardaisan formed his own community and meeting place where his psalms were sung. His songs were popular for a very long time. Ephrem Syrus wrote 150 years after Bardaisan’s death:
      • 'In the lairs of Bardaisan are melodies and chants. Since he saw the youth longing for sweets, with the harmony of his songs he excited the children' (Ephrem Madrash 1:17).

      Ephrem Syrus perfected this art form by writing his own madrâshê to counter Bardaisan.

      Bardaisan was seen initially to be within the Christian milieu. He wrote dialogues against Marcion c 200 CE. The “Book of the Laws of the Countries” was another dialogue that revealed Christians were a “new race” who lived in societies without being bound any laws but those of their own faith (Ross, 2003:120­1). It also discussed “fate” (q.v. see below and Appendix 3).

      Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260 ­ 340 CE) regarded Bardaisan as “most able”, “highly skilled” and his dialogues were seen as a “powerful defence of Christian truth” (Eusebius, History of the Church 4. 30). Also according to Eusebius (History of the Church 4.30) the 'Book of the Laws of the Countrie's was first written in Syriac and then translated into Greek ...
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by MrMacSon »


"Osiris was the first syncretism of Antinous that we can be certain about. The manner of Antinous’ death, by drowning in the Nile, caused him to be deified, and to be syncretized with Osiris and given a cult of his own automatically. The identification of the dead in Egypt with Osiris was somewhat generalized from the time of the Book of the Dead (late Middle Kingdom) onwards, well into the Roman period. However, death in the sacred Nile by drowning (or by being eaten by crocodiles, as Herodotus tells us) conferred an especial honor on the deceased. In the various versions of Osiris’ death, the Nile is always involved, whether in the papyrus swamps where his limbs were scattered, or the river itself where his phallus was swallowed by a fish, or by being closed into a coffin and being thrown into the Nile to drown."

https://aediculaantinoi.wordpress.com/2 ... -antinous/


"I’ve written a bit more about the connections between Antinous, Osiris, and Serapis in a piece, in one of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina titles, Waters of Life: A Devotional Anthology for Isis and Serapis, called “My Travels with Serapis (and Antinous)” ... the photo on the front cover of that book is Red Nile Lotuses, the lotus flower named for Antinous."
In a comment below on that web-page -

By: aediculaantinoi on October 4, 2015
at 9:03 pm

" ...there’s a fun thing regarding Antinous on the Obelisk of Antinous being stated to be the son of Re-Harakhte, which means he’s the son of the being who is his own grandfather.
and, in the same comment -
"... I suspect further evidence may emerge for further ancient syncretisms, and some are in plain sight just waiting to be discerned, while others may yet emerge in practice and lived experience of modern devotees."
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Q from Bardaisan? Jesus from Antinous?

Post by MrMacSon »

From a page on Antinoan Connections there is this somewhat interesting article on Clementia -
Antinoan Connections: Goddesses and Antinous – Clementia

Clementia is one of many further deified abstraction goddesses portrayed on coin reverses during Hadrian’s reign. The English word “clemency” of course originates from this Latin term, and she represented the divine qualities of forgiveness, mercy, humanity, and forbearance, which were idealized qualities that it was hoped a good leader would possess. While some might criticize Hadrian for not always displaying these qualities, in many cases he most certainly did, as for example his burning of the tax records (which in essence eradicated or “forgave” debt for many people).

Clementia did not have a temple in Rome until Julius Caesar created one in about 44 BCE, after the civil wars, when he forgave some of his former enemies. She was shown with a branch and a scepter, often leaning against a column. Apart from these scant traces, we know very little about Clementia’s cultus, or any further details. There was a Greek goddess of mercy, Eleos, who had a shrine in Athens, and who seems comparable ...

https://aediculaantinoi.wordpress.com/2 ... clementia/
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: 3rd Power God

Post by billd89 »

By: aediculaantinoi on October 4, 2015
at 9:03 pm

" ...there’s a fun thing regarding Antinous on the Obelisk of Antinous being stated to be the son of Re-Harakhte, which means he’s the son of the being who is his own grandfather.
Firstly, the Obelisk of Antinous should date to c.132 AD. So Hadrian's lover was assimilated to something older, which recalls an odd bit from a century earlier:
It was long thought to have been brought to Rome from Antinoopolis in Egypt in the 1st half of the 3rd century AD. However, new archaeological research and an inscription on the obelisk implying that it stood in the “garden owned by the Prince of Rome” suggest that it may have been erected at the Antinoeion at Hadrian’s villa. The recent excavations at the imperial villa have uncovered the remains of a temple complex devoted to Antinous, which consisted of two small tetrastyle temples (with four columns) facing each other in front of a semi-circular collonaded exedra. A square (3 x 3 m) concrete foundation located exactly between the two temples is thought to have supported an obelisk.

Philo's God Concept
Philo Judaeus (c.25 AD) also treated this lineage, I think its the same God-System and Egyptian in origin. Logically, Philo was interpreting a Judeo-Osirian conception from the Therapeuts' colony near Taposiris Magna, who would be well-known to his family, presuming their villa was nearby. It's likely Philo grew up w/ 'Therapeut' tutors.

Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis
(30): “But [0] God is the [1] Father, and [2]Craftsman, and [3]Guardian {ἐπίτροπος} of all in Heaven and the Cosmos, in truth. […] (31) God is the Demiurge {δημιουργὸς} and God of Chronos also, for He is the Father of ‘Time’s father’ — that is, the Cosmos’ Chronos {χρόνου κόσμος} — who made the movements of one the origin of the other. Thus Chronos has this order unto God: for this Cosmos, as perceptible by the outward sense, is the younger Son of God. He {Demiurge-God} assigned the senior rank {i.e. over the congregations} of the Noetic Cosmos and purposed that it should remain in his own {i.e. Chronos’} keeping. (32) This Younger Son makes the Nature of Chronos rise and breathe, so that nothing is too late for the future and the boundaries of Chronos. For God is not Chronos but the 'Archetype of Chronos', and 'God's Life' is a 'Paradigm for Aeon' : He is neither Past nor Future in Aeon, but only present 'Being'.

Shu was the Son of Re-Horakhty (= god of the rising sun, Re-Horus of the Horizon = Horon); Soped is the 'grandson.' Har-Sopd = Hor-Sopdu (or Har-Septu) became 'Horus' (c.1300 BC?) in the Eastern Desert.
billd89 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:58 am Dutch Theologian Daniel Völter explained this 100 years ago.
billd89 wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:13 am Hauron = Hourouna, Houroun, Horon, Hōrōn, Heron, Haurun, Hawran, Horan, Huaran, Ourounes, Ouronos

In the older Egyptian form, Ra-Harmakhis (Har-em-akhet, “Horus in the Horizon”); Her-em-akhet (or Horemakhet, Haremakhet) - represented the dawn and early morning sun. "I am thy Father, Harmakhis-Khepri-Re-Atum" etc. Hor-em-Khuti? Re-Harakhty? O Tem-Heru-Khuti (Tem-Harmakhis) ; Nero's reference to Armachis, Overseer and Savior. In Naville [1890] p.71, a lineage of this god
1) Ra-Harmakhis ....... { = Horon}
2) Shu ................... { = Osiris}
3) Soped ................ { = Horus}

Image

Phoenician Hauron = Egyptian Harmakhis "Lord of the Desert" like both Seth and Yahweh. Re: Hauron-Harmakhis, Hauron-Shed appears to be the same god in his juvenile "savior" form = Harsiese-Horus, Son of Isis.

Also, this:
billd89 wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:40 am
”My father is Kronos-Geb, the youngest of all the Gods, and I am Osiris ...”.
[Diodorus Siculus, I, 27]

Egyptian ............. Byblian
1) Shu .................. Baal Shammin / Ouranios ........... Ouranios
2) Kronos-Geb ........ Baal Hadad / Kronos ................. Horon
3) Osiris ............... Baal-Tamar / Zeus Demarous ....... Herakles / Melqart
4) Horus ............... Baal Rimmon .......................... Horos of Kasios
...
"...he’s the son of the being who is his own grandfather." Horus is the Son of Osiris and grandson of Shu, if Horon has been removed (as he was). El-Kronos - Kronos - Kronos was another conflation.

User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

The Edelsteins' Trinitarian Formula

Post by billd89 »

Elsewhere, I've outlined the project that Ludwig and Emma Edelstein worked on in 1938; the Edelsteins (Emma) had been researching Asclepius (Ἀσκληπιός) since 1934. Here they outline a three-fold pantheon and Asclepius Lineage which mirrors the Chronos Lineage which Philo Judaeus describes; logically, for Edelstein Philo was a Neo-Platonist.

If this is correct, the 'Father and Creator' are certainly distinct (confirming a 'Two Power Heresy'), and the Thrice-Great Hermes (c.) of Poimandres (Father-Nous-Hermes) approximates what Philo Judaeus is trying to work out for (or impose upon) some sectarian believers of the 'Jewish' God. His mysterious Therapeutae (c.15 AD) apparently had a Four-fold Concept of the composite Deity, and I believe that Diaspora Judaism of the First C. was in fact diverse enough that multiple systems co-existed c.25 AD.

Emma J. Edelstein, Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, Vol. 1, [1945], p.108:
In the opinion of the Neo-platonists, Asclepius was in fact the soul of the world by which the creation is held together and filled with symmetry and balanced union (T.304). Through Asclepius, the savior of the whole world, the health and safety of all is guaranteed (T. 306). Through him, the elements do not relax their indestructible bonds; through him, the universe remains young and healthy (T.309)25 Since the Neo-Platonists, progressing along the lines of earlier speculation, stressed even more than did their predecessors the remoteness of the highest god, the frailty and weakness of the world which requires supervision and salvation at every moment, Asclepius' task, to them, was all-important. In their opinion, therefore, Asclepius was a god even before the beginning of existence, a transcendental deity (T. 305; cf. also T.259), although he was ruling over the phenomenal world, although he was within it. Zeus had engendered Asclepius from himself; but through the sun, through Apollo, he had revealed him to the mundane regions (T.307) In his earthly appearance Asclepius was the third from Zeus (T.303). Thus the god of medicine took his place in the pagan trinity. (Edelstein, 108) … But despite all changes in his influence and in his position, he did not change his nature: he remained the healer of diseases and the giver of health.

From Aelius Aristides, Orationes 42.4 we have the three Gods:
1. Zeus
2. Zeus-Apollo
3. Apollo-Asclepius

In Elephantine Egypt (c.400 BC), the House of Yahu was obviously and certainly a plurality if not a family or lineage. Eshmun is associated with Asclepius, or Imhotep-Joseph (as some would have it).

A wife of Ludwig's colleague, Mrs. Harold F. Cherniss, is thanked in Edelstein essays of this period (c.1935-7) for her "proof-reading." Ruth Meyer Cherniss was herself a scholar, and certainly assisted her husband (who is considered 'one of the foremost North American Hellenists of the 20th century') and would have known his opinion on Philo Judaeus as a "Platonist".

The alternate case for the Four-fold God (God-in-Four Persons) in Philo Judaeus (c.30 AD) would seem to find archaeological support in the Palmyrene Monument (121 AD), another Semitic pantheon/plurality of the Supreme Deity. There were probably competing systems, no surprise there. So among some Judeo-Egyptians (or perhaps Egypto-Chaldaeans) the fourth iteration of 'God' is actually the mundane manifestation: Divinized Man, the A. A.
Post Reply