Revisiting Philo's Therapeutae and their Context/Timeline

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1747
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Definition of the term "Paradox", Etc.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Thanks for your long response.
billd89 wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:04 pm For me, a true paradox is an evident or known conundrum or enigma: a confounding mystery, not merely a gap in the data-set or unknown, nor something that is merely debatable.

By design, your descriptions of paradoxes here are disinformative in almost every case. AND YET -- that notorious 'But...' -- the work De Vita Contemplativa ascribed to one 'Philo Judaeus' is deeply problematic itself: "a hot mess" as the kids of today would say. Legitimately, we may argue

a) whether Philo wrote it (or not),
b) whether the Therapeutae at Lake Mareotis were real or fiction,
c) whether they were "Jews" ,
d) whether they were connected to other 'Jewish groups', and so on.

This tedious path has been tread and re-tread many times before: why bother re-explaining to the wrong-headed or bad-intentioned for the umpteenth time?
I accept that a paradox to one person may not necessarily be a paradox to another. My approach may be wrong-headed but it isn't bad intentioned. You may ask these questions a, b, c, d. These are important questions. And should be answered. But I have asked this question:

e) "Who were the therapeutae in antiquity"?

This also deserves an answer. So let's start at the top.
"Paradox 1" isn't. Like so many terms in Philo's vocabulary, the word 'therapeutae' is pagan Greek. The 'therapeut' as an ascetic or devotional personality type existed throughout the then-known world (as he says). There's no archaeological evidence proving that, either. 'We don't have proof' isn't paradoxical, and literary inconsistency isn't either. 'Problematic' is not 'paradoxical' by definition.
Let me try and explain why I think the general answer to this question appears (to me) to be paradoxical.

I agree that the word 'therapeutae' is pagan Greek. I supplied a long extended list (reproduced below) of its use in the pre-Christian and "early" Christian epoch through to Julian. Galen identified himself to the emperor Marcus Aurelius that he wished to be granted an exception for military service on the basis that he was a therapeutae of Asclepius. Was Galen an ascetic or devotional personality type? As far as I understand he was a physician in (devotional) service to the healing deity Asclepius. I admire and accept the Edelstein's research on the archeology of Asclepius and rightly or wrongly see the healing cult as one of the major cults - if not the largest - in the Graeco-Roman world up until the appearance of Constantine - who trashed the cult and its major temples.

The term therapeutai also occurs in relation to worshippers of Sarapis in inscriptions, such as on Delos. So we can both possibly accept it was a Greek generic term reserved for the "worshippers, followers or attendants" at all sorts of pagan temples which filled the Graeco-Roman world - including Egypt - prior to its Christianisation.

The "paradox" IMO is reflected in this:

Who mentions "therapeutae" in antiquity?

Achilles Tatius
Aelian
Aeschines
Antiphon
Apollodorus
Appian
Aristides (numerous times)
Aristophanes
Arrian
Athenaeus (numerous times)
Cassius Dio
Chariton
Claudius Ptolemy
Demosthenes
Dio Chrysostom
Diodorus
Diogenes
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Epictetus
Euripides (numerous times)
Galen
Herodotus
Hesiod
Hippocrates
Homer
Hymn 3 to Apollo
Hyperides
Isaeus
Isocrates
Julian (many times)
Lucian (numerous times)
Lysias
Marcus Aurelius
Onasander
Philo of Alexandria <<<<<========================= (Philo)
Philostratus the Athenian
Pindar
Plato (especially popular in Plato)
Plutarch (many, many times - MOST references are in Plutarch)
Polybius
Procopius
Sophocles
Strabo
Theophrastus
Thucydides (numerous times)
Xenophon

The use of the term in Philo is IMO completely different to the use of the term in all the other pagan writers of antiquity. Where all the pagan writers use the term in a generic sense to refer to the pagan "followers" of the [pagan] gods, Philo uses the term as the name of a specific sect which Coneybeare (and those following his theory) argue were "Jewish".

Such is the extent of the "acceptance" of Coneybeare's theory that when one asks "Who were the therapeutae in antiquity invariably the answer given is that they were a 1st century Jewish sect. This explanation ignores the mass of pagan literary and archaeological evidence.

Rightly or wrongly I see this as a paradox. That is to say if we went back to antiquity and asked the people everywhere "Who are the therapeutae" everyone but Philo (if indeed he is the author of VC) would point to the great class of people who served, attended, in the pagan temples. (It's as if the term has been obfuscated)

ETA:

1) BTW thanks for your links

2)
The Edelsteins literally wrote the book on Asclepius; archival evidence proves they had been studying that cult since at least 1934. Yet their work, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies [1945] has NO WORD INDEX for "Therapeutae" -- Ding! Ding! Ding! -- they have assiduously avoided any reference to the word which appears several dozen times in the Greek of their text. Why, o why, indeed (telling by omission). "Who were the Therapeutae?" is the winning Jeopardy answer to the question, "Who were the First A. A.?"
Why did the Edelsteins assiduously avoid any reference to the word?

3) IDK what you are referring to as "the First A.A."?
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Mon Sep 05, 2022 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Philo's Therapeutae = Aletheian Anthropoi

Post by billd89 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:58 pmThe use of the term in Philo is IMO completely different to the use of the term in all the other pagan writers of antiquity.

Well, no. Just like pagan "servants" of a god, Philo's A. A. (aka 'Therapeutae') serve God. Likewise, the Anonymous Authors put it succinctly in their composed prayer: "How can I best serve Thee?" The Edelsteins are quite explicit on this point.
Why did the Edelsteins assiduously avoid any reference to the word?
In their Asclepius, which appeared several years after their other Big Book for a healing cult, fully-funded by J.D. Rockefeller Jr., you wonder? For the same reason they remained Anonymous ever after. It's a brilliant clue by stark omission, however.

I've consciously abbreviated the term appearing in several Philonic works: ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος. The Anonymous Authors at the Wm. Welch Medical Library selected the book title; it was no accident nor coincidence.

I would suggest that Justin Martyr called them (i.e. Philo's Therapeutae) Genistae. You'll see I've elaborated & explained this before (it's their Jewish Mystery, not our mindless paradox).

After K.Jaspers, Edelstein's Ph.D advisor at Heidelberg, one who experiences an Existentialist Self-Realization (Transcendence =
"the essential psychic change" = "We were reborn" = Philonic Palingenesia) becomes analogous to both Philo's Actualized Man or the Judeo-Hermetic Man-Shepherd. Yale Prof. E.R. Goodenough had connected those dots in his book on mystical Judaism in 1935; the Edelsteins carefully detailed a modern Jacob's Ladder for Therapeutic henosis in 1938.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: God Complex of Philo's Therapeutae

Post by billd89 »

billd89 wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 7:48 pmAs stated here unequivocally, 'Being' is the 'God' that the Pythagorean Therapeutae worship. However, we need to remember that elsewhere Philo indicates other formulations, definite examples of 3-fold or 4-fold iterations of 'God'. This is illustrative of the Philonic context, a caution against gross oversimplification or blatant misunderstanding.

DVC 2: ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν #1: τὸ ὄν, ὃ καὶ #3: ἀγαθοῦ κρεῖττόν ἐστι καὶ #4 ἑνὸς εἰλικρινέστερον καὶ #2 μονάδος ἀρχεγονώτερον.

DVC 2: they are raised to worship 'Being' {#1: Προαρχή, Μονότης = Foresource, Monotes}, superior to 'The Good' {#3 Noetic Paradigm} and purer than 'The Unity' {#4 Ἑνότης The Henad: The All}, and primordial to 'The Monad' {#2 All-Source, One God}

The Four-fold Hypostases of 'God':
1. Primordial Being: Unknown/Unbegotten Absolute Being
2. Monad (Logos): First Son, Creator, Author
3. Divine Reality: Noetic Paradigm of Creation
4. Henad: Cosmic Reality (Creation: 'Heaven and Earth')
Accepting the premise that a) 'Therapeutae' were a real Judaic sect at Plinthine, which b) Philo Judaeus knew intimately (defended), and c) their characterization was accurate, then:

In this schema, perhaps a pantheon, who are these Semitic (Judeo-Egyptian?) gods?

I can imagine an analogous system among Catholic Christians (nominally/purportedly Jewish, at the beginning c.150-200 AD), fairly easily:
1. Father God
2. Holy Spirit/Logos?
3. Jesus (Son)
4. Mary, Mother of God

We don't talk about Mary Myth here, so often. If Divine Mary appears c.150 AD, she should have been elaborated fairly early also. If the Gospel of James was well-known to Origen c.225 AD and probably to Clement of Alexandria c.175 AD, it should have been in circulation c.125 AD. The myth reminds me of Aphrodite Palestina, and 'Encratites' (Water-Drinkers) sound like Nabateans/Rechabites ...

Blog post:
The chief example of an apocryphal work with a heavy Marian emphasis from the 100s would be the Protogospel of James. This work was most likely written sometime around the middle of the second century, most likely by a non-Jew or by a Jew living outside of Palestine. This work is notable for four unique ideas that it promulgates: Firstly, that Mary herself had a miraculous conception. Secondly, that Mary remained a virgin, both during her pregnancy as well as after the birth of Christ. Thirdly, that Christ’s birth was wholly unnatural, with Mary not pushing Christ through her birth canal, but him being seemingly teleported to her breast. Fourthly, that Joseph’s marriage to Mary was not a normal one, Joseph being more of a protector to Mary than a husband. Due to the rather porous nature of the canon in the very early church, the Protogospel of James would have been read by both the orthodox and the unorthodox, it being only officially declared to be apocryphal in the sixth century. This usage by the orthodox is not speculative, as Clement of Alexandria alludes to the Protogospel in his Stromata, treating it as though it were Scripture. The early date of the Protogospel, it’s late condemnation, and widespread readership doubtlessly contributed to the spread of its unique Marian teachings, normalizing the notion of a spectacular Mary, as opposed to the relatively normal woman we see in the Gospels.

But I don't want to myopically privilege the familiar, where in Alexandria (where Philo lived) another patheon might be more apt? :
billd89 wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:13 am Where the Pentateuch was composed at Alexandria c.272 BC (following Gmirkin), it is no surprise the character of Moses should reveal as Herakles, Hero of the Heroon of Hauron (the elder Semitic god). Sweeney (2009) is correct but has missed another key fact: Egyptian Moses' elder brother Aaron = the elder god Hauron. Where Aaron is Hauron, Moses-Aaron = Herakles-Horon. See Emmet John Sweeney, Gods, Heroes and Tyrants: Greek Chronology in Chaos [2009], p.161:
In my Pyramid Age I examined the character of Moses in great detail and there produced manifold proofs showing him to be mythically identical to Herakles. Again, without going into the details, we should remember that Moses (the 'son') has a mysterious birth, as does Herakles (whose father is the Zeus, the Roman Jove — identical apparently to Moses' Jehovah/Yahweh); Moses is the enemy of the serpent — he destroys the two serpents of the pharaohs' magicians, whilst Herakles strangles the two serpents sent by Hera to destroy him in his cradle; Moses “pushes apart” the walls of water at the Sea of Passage, Herakles pushes apart the two rock pillars at Gibraltar; Moses does not die, but ascends the sacred mountain to his father; whilst Herakles ascends to his father Zeus at the top of Mount Oeta; and so on.

1. Yahu ........ Ptah = On? .............. Ouranos ............................. YHWH
2. Anat ........ Hathor .................. Urania ................................ (Sophia)
3. Herem ..... Thoth ..................... Horon ............................... Aaron
4. BethEl ...... Isis-Thermouthis ....... Aphrodite ............................ Miriam
5. Ishum ...... Hermes .................. Herakles & Horus-Harpocrates ... Moses
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1747
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Who were the therapeutai in antiquity?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

billd89 wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 5:43 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:58 pmThe use of the term in Philo is IMO completely different to the use of the term in all the other pagan writers of antiquity.

Well, no. Just like pagan "servants" of a god, Philo's A. A. (aka 'Therapeutae') serve God.

Which god in antiquity would that be? (I am not a Biblical Theist)
Why did the Edelsteins assiduously avoid any reference to the word?
In their Asclepius, which appeared several years after their other Big Book for a healing cult, fully-funded by J.D. Rockefeller Jr., you wonder? For the same reason they remained Anonymous ever after. It's a brilliant clue by stark omission, however.
This just adds to my lack of clarity about the details. Can you elucidate?
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Edelsteins' Answer to the 'God Question' (Therapeutae of DVC)

Post by billd89 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:32 pm
billd89 wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 5:43 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:58 pmThe use of the term in Philo is IMO completely different to the use of the term in all the other pagan writers of antiquity.

Well, no. Just like pagan "servants" of a god, Philo's A. A. (aka 'Therapeutae') serve God.
Which god in antiquity would that be? (I am not a Biblical Theist)
What is a "Biblical Theist", someone who accepts the triune god of the Catholic Church? (I'm not either -- is that a prerequisite to understanding?)

To ask is to answer -- I'm not being smug or clever, THAT is the Mystery. All of my posting on this forum, almost every single OP and Reply, touches upon that very question. THAT "God", the one the Anonymous Authors have indicated, is precisely Why my research led me here. It's 'the burning question' which has consumed me, oh, going back +30 years. Of course I should want to know 'what it means.' I have every right to know.

AND NOW I have solved this riddle.* The reconstructed rationale (backstory) goes something like this:

1) The Rockefellers agreed to create a self-help book (commercial product) in support of another project, around November 1937.
2) Quid pro quo, Dr. Henry Sigerist's tiny Institute at Johns Hopkins was heavily funded; his Ph.Ds were assigned the task of composition on about 1/11/1938.
3) Rockefeller's people assumed that Dr. John Rathbone Oliver, the best-selling author and Anglo-Catholic priest, would do it again; instead, Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig Edelstein devised most of the Program themselves in the Summer and Fall 1938.
4) Pulled from their own related Asclepius project to re-imagine "First Century Christian healing," our {secular and mystical Jewish} Authors honed in on Philo's Therapeutae, (Proto)Gnostics, the Jewish Hermetica, Rechabites, etc.
5) The Edelsteins re-imagined this Judeo-Egyptian therapeusis for modern Americans by themselves, wholly independent of the Rockefeller Christians. There's no Jesus Christ in the Edelsteins' Program, period (some Christian Fundamentalists have grasped this fact, warily and sometimes angrily.)
6) The manuscript they completed in January 1939 has countless traces to their own sources, professors, philosophy, etc.
7) The whole business was sworn to secrecy, the Edelsteins took it to the grave w/ them, BUT there is a money trail.

I'm not grandiose, but it's like the Arthurian Quest for the Holy Grail: the Graal is a krater. In January, 1938, A.D. Nock published an article by André-Jean Festugière on The Krater, an Hermetic symbol. Father Festugière (an anti-semite? anti-German?) dismissively references Edelstein's (German Jewish) friend and colleague's work, Sobria Ebrietas. Meta-conceptually, in retort, Edelstein then adopts Yale Prof. E.R. Goodenough's thesis to brilliantly defend the 'Jewish' position. (Festugière is a bit of a cunt, frankly; no surprise the Edelsteins disliked him.) HOW or WHY did the Edelsteins work through this, adopting Petrie's thesis (the Corpus Hermeticum was produced by Therapeutae) to reach the conclusion the 'Jewish Hermetica' was written by Melchizedekians or Sethians? We cannot be certain without the Authors' own testimony, but one obvious answer is via Moriz Friedländer and . (That's part of my speculation anyway, abbreviated.)

To your inquiry, I see how the Edelsteins' answered the Question 'Who is the God of the Therapeutae?' -- the A. A. of antiquity -- by the more relevant question from a modern A. A. 'Who is the God of the Big Book?' Definitively, illustrated by so many clear-cut examples in their 1938 text, the identity of that deity is revealed in the reported characteristics of that very god:

1) Who is the God of Riddles & Curses? (Horon, as Harmakhis, The Sphinx.)
2) Who is the God of Creative Intelligence? (Harmakhis = ‘Egyptian Wisdom’.)
3) Who is the God of The Pit/Abyss/Darkness? (Horon, as Baal Zeboul ‘The Prince’.)
4a) Who is the Cosmocrator (= Boss Universal) & King of Sheol? (Baal ‘The Prince’.)
4b) Who is the Cosmocrator (= King of Heaven) & King of Heaven? (Horon.)
5a) Who is the God of The Universe? (Horon, as Theos Oranos.)
5b) Who is the God of The Stars (i.e. Universal Creator)? (Zeus Ouranos.)
6) Who is the God of Flight (i.e. Lord-of-the-Flies)? (Beelzebub.)
7) Who is the God of Lofty Places? (Horon.)
8) Who is the God of the Awakening? (Sublime & Terror: Horon.)
9) Who is the God of Miraculous (Physical) Cures? (Horon as Asclepius.)
10) Who is the God of Victory? (Horon as Herakles’ Assistant Iolaos; Heron)
11) Who is the Man-Shepherd? (Horon “the Victorious Herdsman” = Eshmun.)
12) Who is the God of the Desert/ Dunes? (Horon as Egyptian Shed/Shu; Baal Rimmon.)

... and on and on. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, etc., we cannot insist it be an ostrich, platypus, or anything else. (In so many sources, ancient Horon has all those attributes I've just listed; ergo, Horon is the specific god the Edelsteins meant.) Why? No other deity matches the criteria which our very German/very precise Anonymous Authors have given for their book about Therapeutae.

In 1936, his colleague W.F. Albright wrote an important paper on Hauron. Perhaps it was discussed with fellow Club member Ludwig Edelstein? Probably and not coincidentally, given their subsequent 1938 book and logical inference (i.e. circular argument), that begat this.

AND no, this really isn't so kooky, if the Rockefellers balked: it's right there in the NT Synoptic Gospels. See Mark 3:22–27, Matthew 12:22-37, and Luke 11:15.

* By researching their method and purpose in other published writings of "Ludwig Edelstein", I perceive that they wrote and defined that "God" with varied but definite traits consistent to ONE GOD: syncretistic Egypto-Canaanite Horon, a.k.a. Baal Zeboul. (Since "of your own conception..." is an edit, ADDED TO THE COMPLETED MS. after January 1939, it is not original to the Authors' plan.) Beyond any universalizing ambiguities, so many clues like "Czar of the Heavens" (= Cosmocrator = Baal-Zebul) point squarely at Horon. This is Edelstein's modus operandi, evident also in an essay (see p.282) about William Osler and William James and a particular reference which everyone has read but no one gets.


In their 1945 book about the Therapeutae, Asclepius, WHY did the Edelsteins assiduously avoid any reference to the word 'therapeutae'?
Timing, yet this stark clue-by-omission is a giveaway of sorts. Their Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies wasn't really about 'the god' but rather the worshippers and culture. There is really no good reason why their detailed Word Index should omit the term 'therapeutae', unless the Rockefeller people were concerned someone might connect-the-dots to that other healing cult book -- likewise based on Therapeutae -- which had been recently published (1939). But so far as we know, no other reader then or since has ever figured it out ...

Bear in mind that I am only tracing the Edelsteins' theory, excavating a foundation revealed by textual evidence of their occult 1938 work. (Whether or not an historical 'Therapeutae' actually worshipped Horon is an entirely separate matter.) But this DVC god of the Aletheian Anthropoi -- Philo's A. A. -- does not sound like YHWH of normative Judaism either!

So their theoretical and occult answer is Hauron :
Image
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1747
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Edelsteins' Answer to the 'God Question' (Therapeutae of DVC)

Post by Leucius Charinus »

billd89 wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:00 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:32 pm
billd89 wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 5:43 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:58 pmThe use of the term in Philo is IMO completely different to the use of the term in all the other pagan writers of antiquity.

Well, no. Just like pagan "servants" of a god, Philo's A. A. (aka 'Therapeutae') serve God.
Which god in antiquity would that be? (I am not a Biblical Theist)
What is a "Biblical Theist", someone who accepts the triune god of the Catholic Church?
More or less.
(I'm not either -- is that a prerequisite to understanding?)
No. I am just trying to understand whatever assumptions are being introduced.
To ask is to answer -- I'm not being smug or clever, THAT is the Mystery. All of my posting on this forum, almost every single OP and Reply, touches upon that very question. THAT "God", the one the Anonymous Authors have indicated, is precisely Why my research led me here. It's 'the burning question' which has consumed me, oh, going back +30 years. Of course I should want to know 'what it means.' I have every right to know.
That's three decades. You have covered a lot of ground as is demonstrated in your wide reading (in multiple languages?).

AND NOW I have solved this riddle.* The reconstructed rationale (backstory) goes something like this:

1) The Rockefellers agreed to create a self-help book (commercial product) in support of another project, around November 1937.
2) Quid pro quo, Dr. Henry Sigerist's tiny Institute at Johns Hopkins was heavily funded; his Ph.Ds were assigned the task of composition on about 1/11/1938.
3) Rockefeller's people assumed that Dr. John Rathbone Oliver, the best-selling author and Anglo-Catholic priest, would do it again; instead, Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig Edelstein devised most of the Program themselves in the Summer and Fall 1938.
4) Pulled from their own related Asclepius project to re-imagine "First Century Christian healing," our {secular and mystical Jewish} Authors honed in on Philo's Therapeutae, (Proto)Gnostics, the Jewish Hermetica, Rechabites, etc.
5) The Edelsteins re-imagined this Judeo-Egyptian therapeusis for modern Americans by themselves, wholly independent of the Rockefeller Christians. There's no Jesus Christ in the Edelsteins' Program, period (some Christian Fundamentalists have grasped this fact, warily and sometimes angrily.)
6) The manuscript they completed in January 1939 has countless traces to their own sources, professors, philosophy, etc.
7) The whole business was sworn to secrecy, the Edelsteins took it to the grave w/ them, BUT there is a money trail.
I am aware of the Edelstein's study of the Asclepius cult and its archaeology but I was not aware of any other book by them. I don't seem to able to find the reference to it in your posts although you've probably supplied this somewhere. Can you link to it?
I'm not grandiose, but it's like the Arthurian Quest for the Holy Grail: the Graal is a krater. In January, 1938, A.D. Nock published an article by André-Jean Festugière on The Krater, an Hermetic symbol. Father Festugière (an anti-semite? anti-German?) dismissively references Edelstein's (German Jewish) friend and colleague's work, Sobria Ebrietas. Meta-conceptually, in retort, Edelstein then adopts Yale Prof. E.R. Goodenough's thesis to brilliantly defend the 'Jewish' position. (Festugière is a bit of a cunt, frankly; no surprise the Edelsteins disliked him.) HOW or WHY did the Edelsteins work through this, adopting Petrie's thesis (the Corpus Hermeticum was produced by Therapeutae) to reach the conclusion the 'Jewish Hermetica' was written by Melchizedekians or Sethians? We cannot be certain without the Authors' own testimony, but one obvious answer is via Moriz Friedländer and . (That's part of my speculation anyway, abbreviated.)
That's a mass of information. I will sift through it.
To your inquiry, I see how the Edelsteins' answered the Question 'Who is the God of the Therapeutae?' -- the A. A. of antiquity -- by the more relevant question from a modern A. A. 'Who is the God of the Big Book?' Definitively, illustrated by so many clear-cut examples in their 1938 text, the identity of that deity is revealed in the reported characteristics of that very god:

1) Who is the God of Riddles & Curses? (Horon, as Harmakhis, The Sphinx.)
2) Who is the God of Creative Intelligence? (Harmakhis = ‘Egyptian Wisdom’.)
3) Who is the God of The Pit/Abyss/Darkness? (Horon, as Baal Zeboul ‘The Prince’.)
4a) Who is the Cosmocrator (= Boss Universal) & King of Sheol? (Baal ‘The Prince’.)
4b) Who is the Cosmocrator (= King of Heaven) & King of Heaven? (Horon.)
5a) Who is the God of The Universe? (Horon, as Theos Oranos.)
5b) Who is the God of The Stars (i.e. Universal Creator)? (Zeus Ouranos.)
6) Who is the God of Flight (i.e. Lord-of-the-Flies)? (Beelzebub.)
7) Who is the God of Lofty Places? (Horon.)
8) Who is the God of the Awakening? (Sublime & Terror: Horon.)
9) Who is the God of Miraculous (Physical) Cures? (Horon as Asclepius.)
10) Who is the God of Victory? (Horon as Herakles’ Assistant Iolaos; Heron)
11) Who is the Man-Shepherd? (Horon “the Victorious Herdsman” = Eshmun.)
12) Who is the God of the Desert/ Dunes? (Horon as Egyptian Shed/Shu; Baal Rimmon.)

... and on and on. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, etc., we cannot insist it be an ostrich, platypus, or anything else. (In so many sources, ancient Horon has all those attributes I've just listed; ergo, Horon is the specific god the Edelsteins meant.) Why? No other deity matches the criteria which our very German/very precise Anonymous Authors have given for their book about Therapeutae.
Again - and sorry if you have to repeat yourself - but which book is this? Can you point to it? Thanks.
In 1936, his colleague W.F. Albright wrote an important paper on Hauron. Perhaps it was discussed with fellow Club member Ludwig Edelstein? Probably and not coincidentally, given their subsequent 1938 book and logical inference (i.e. circular argument), that begat this.

AND no, this really isn't so kooky, if the Rockefellers balked: it's right there in the NT Synoptic Gospels. See Mark 3:22–27, Matthew 12:22-37, and Luke 11:15.

* By researching their method and purpose in other published writings of "Ludwig Edelstein", I perceive that they wrote and defined that "God" with varied but definite traits consistent to ONE GOD: syncretistic Egypto-Canaanite Horon, a.k.a. Baal Zeboul. (Since "of your own conception..." is an edit, ADDED TO THE COMPLETED MS. after January 1939, it is not original to the Authors' plan.) Beyond any universalizing ambiguities, so many clues like "Czar of the Heavens" (= Cosmocrator = Baal-Zebul) point squarely at Horon. This is Edelstein's modus operandi, evident also in an essay (see p.282) about William Osler and William James and a particular reference which everyone has read but no one gets.
I will read that essay by Edelstein about William Osler . Thanks.

In their 1945 book about the Therapeutae, Asclepius, WHY did the Edelsteins assiduously avoid any reference to the word 'therapeutae'?

Timing, yet this stark clue-by-omission is a giveaway of sorts. Their Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies wasn't really about 'the god' but rather the worshippers and culture. There is really no good reason why their detailed Word Index should omit the term 'therapeutae'
I do agree with that observation.
unless the Rockefeller people were concerned someone might connect-the-dots to that other healing cult book -- likewise based on Therapeutae -- which had been recently published (1939).
Again (repeating myself - sorry if there's already a link to it) but what is this other therapeutae related book of 1939?

Thanks for the response.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Andreas Dorpalen's "Lost Year" (1938)

Post by billd89 »

You like movie spoilers? I hate spoilers. I love a mystery that unfolds slowwwwly, with all the clues played one by one. Shhhh, don't ruin it for the slower folks who savor details :D

The Edelsteins wrote and eventually published a book on Asclepius (in 1945). Regarding the timeline, we know their project began in 1933 or 1934. Then, inexplicably, there was an interruption in 1938. Even more miraculously -- despite his impenetrable accent and 'not publishing' -- Ludwig Edelstein was named Professor at Johns Hopkins in 1939.

I didn't notice that immediately, however. This "gap year" was understood only AFTER I had contacted the granddaughter of another Author (this one was named after his death: he is now known). We spoke and emailed 5-6 times. She had a complete collection of her grandfather's diaries from 1906 until 1954 ... EVERY year, except for "1938". She told me that was very odd: she had absolutely no records from that year. Coincidence, or gleaners? That tipped me off to look for the 'Lost Year 1938' in any chronological records.

Then I traced the same 'gap year' to another suspected Anonymous Author on my short-list, the 'candidates'. Without any doubt, Andreas Dorpalen was a Rockefeller writer (see credits, at E. Jäckh), but his Ohio U. Personnel File offered me 'the smoking gun', p.4 : “I found employment as a linguist in the Guided Tours Department at Rockefeller Center, New York City, until, in September 1937, I suffered an attack of infantile paralysis {Poliomyelitis}. After my recovery I worked from 1939 …” Elsewhere, which confirmed my suspicions, I found contradictory information for his activities claiming otherwise: during 1937-1939, he had interviewed people and not been 'sick in bed' for the entire ~18 months. The question remains open.

Of Andreas Dorpalen as a 'Likely Candidate' in this exact period, we may say:
1. Rockefeller Employee = DEFINITE.
2. Rockefeller Writer = DEFINITE.
3. Frank Amos Connection = POSSIBLE.
4. Interviewed People in Mid-Atlantic/Mid-West = DEFINITE.
5. Continuing Rockefeller Support = DEFINITE.
6. Later Ohio Connection = DEFINITE.

**It is confirmed that Andreas Dorpalen was stricken with polio, at some point. What remains unconfirmed is WHEN and WHERE, exactly. IF he was infected in Ohio (or Maryland), that should virtually guarantee that Dorpalen was Frank Amos' assistant in 1938. IF he had been 'interviewing people', working on the Rockefeller Project with Frank Amos in Ohio during Feb. 1938, then a 'late infection' in the Summer of 1938 would allow both the possibility and a deniability fudge for Dorpalen's involvement. This seems far-fetched, although more information is needed to settle the question of Dorpalen's illness in its precise circumstances.

On the contrary: a series of leading coincidences might otherwise explain the misperception that Dorpalen had anything to do with the Amos research.**

The American Exporter, Volume 116 [1935] reported this news: “Frank B. Amos, one of the best known export advertising men in the United States, has joined Maxon, Inc., one of the most prominent of the newer advertising agencies of the country. Mr. Amos has had a hand in promoting many American products abroad and is well known to leading importing distributors throughout the world. He has travelled widely abroad and circled the globe three times. He first came into prominence in handling the foreign advertising of the Studebaker Corporation and later did similar work for Dodge Brothers before the merger with Chrysler.”

Amos was a covert Rockefeller operator, but also a first-rate promoter w/ a key Akron account. In late 1934, the Overseas advertising of Firestone Tire and Rubber Export Company had been taken over by Maxon, Inc., specifically by Account Executive Frank B. Amos (Detroit), who moved to New York City, to an office at Rockefeller’s RCA Building, 570 Lexington Avenue (aka ‘30 Rock’, where Diego Rivera’s mural ‘Man at the Crossroads’ had recently been destroyed).
Image

So Andreas Dorpalen -- elite young lawyer, expat Berlin intellectual (historian and writer) -- was working directly for the Rockefellers from 1936-7. He claimed to be a 'translator' (or something) for the Guided Tours Office, everso conveniently located at the Concourse of 570 Lexington Avenue. Downstairs, in the same building where our Midwestern transplant Frank Amos worked. How was his French and German? I suspect Dorpalen was an off-the-books assistant for foreign ad-man Amos in 1937, but I cannot prove that.

Was Frank B. Amos recruited by the Rockefeller network before 1937? That changes everything, doesn't it: BILL LIED. Amos (however obscure his role) is most definitely linked to my specific Project; Rockefeller put him on the Board of Trustees. Dorpalen is not; he quietly executed other Rockefeller writing projects over the next five years. But how do we explain that nagging 'gap year' in 1938, what did a German history writer do in Baltimore and Akron on Rockefeller's dime?!

"I had polio. Don't ask."

In short order, both he and Ludwig Edelstein were subsequently named US Professors. Thanks, Rocky! I also love that they put Edelstein's boss, Dr. Henry Sigerist, on the Cover of Time Magazine (Jan. 30, 1939) a few weeks after the Rockefeller Book ms. was submitted by his staff:
Image

I strongly suspect there were 6-8 Anonymous Authors sharing project responsibilities divided accordingly. Obviously, the role of Andreas Dorpalen (a Rockefeller agent) was to act as a liaison between the Rockefeller Center patrons and their Wm. Welch Library contractors. I believe he also interviewed some of the subjects (as Frank Amos' research assistant would) AND helped the German-Jewish Edelsteins to better understand the Midwestern-Christian Akron community (as both an interpreter and an eye-witness). This does not contradict the fact of his polio illness, which may have occurred somewhat later than reported.

I also don't wish to sound too dismissive, but Dorpalen was a Contributor and NOT the Author of the Program. He probably knew nothing about Pythagoreans, Philo, Jewish Mysticism, etc. because those Hellenistic topics were simply outside his field of expertise (i.e. European social history; political science).
Post Reply