God as Chronos in Philo, Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis 30ff

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: God as Chronos in Philo, Detailed Reply

Post by billd89 »

yakovzutolmai -
I greatly appreciate your Replies! Forgive me for not responding in detail to each - you've set me off in multiple lines of inquiry (also APPRECIATED) which impaired my ability to dialogue in timely way. The 'excitement of new research', as it were...
yakovzutolmai wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:01 am I continue to favor my hypothesis of Chronos/El as a tripartite god. Adonis/Ieoud (Youth) - Zeus (Kaisos)/Hadad (Maturity) - Cronos/Yam (Decay). Even Hermes Trismegistus has this form.
Still I cannot find any confimation of "Ieoud" beyond this one garbled myth. We might imagine Ieoud=Adonis for some ethnics who refuse the Greek name (why?), or it's a local variant for unknown reason(s). But another source or two must confirm. An extraordinary work which synthesizes many Adon/Tammuz elements is John C. Franklin, Kinyras: The Divine Lyre [2016], here. fwiw, Hyginus (c.15 AD) has Kronos as Eous.

There are also real problems in the correspondence you hypothesized. According to the Aphakitis myth (which IS consistent, confirmed) Adon is killed by Apollo (not Adon's father). WHEREAS the Chronos myth has C. (not Adon) castrating but not killing HIS father Ouranos. They seem wholly different myths (by outcome, structure, etc.) AND are otherwise unattested in the period. Even if we grant that syncretism allows some substitution and adaptations, your interpretation goes much farther afield also. I'm not saying 'It cannot be!' - but rather I see too many discrepancies/hurdles, still.
...while this might be the origin of Jewish mystical forms, we should probably assume that by Philo's time there was only a tenuous identification with past form. I'd like to identify Canaanite mysticism as the origin of Jewish theology, but .... we know the result.
This is what I hope to show, regarding Jewish Gnosticism, but I strongly doubt the 10th C BC provides any answers. The persistence of forms is totally unlikely. Firstly, the "Ieoud" Myth must be reasonably confirmed & dated, which I suspect to be a (Late) 'Egyptian' Gnostic form. From Gaza, or where? If simply true as written (doubtful!), then Ieoud is tied to Afqa in a Byblos myth c.75 AD at the latest. However, if this is REALLY a Judeo-Egyptian record carried back to Byblos, then adaptation(s) may be too radical to make sense of (again: as presented by Philo B.) We have some pretty severe unknowns.
Philo is probably using the two powers in heaven concept, which is an area of great debate. Adam Kadmon and the second Adam.
In Philo J., the Two Power Thesis includes (First Son) Logos, but already a third power is hinted at, the (Second Son) Aletheian Anthropos; like our Time-Lord example, different systems appear in Philo. BOTH Philo J and the Corpus Hermeticum share some theological elements, but Afkitis 'Apollo+Adonis' don't connect to either. I havent seen the 'Sacrificed Son of God' in Philo J. (which also doesn't mean it didnt already exist in either Phoenicia or Alexandria) unrevealed or unknown to his work; Xtians would have REALLY seized on that if otherwise.

The 'Sacrificed Son of God' myth might well be of Phoenician origin, and validate a Jewish mythic lineage to this area rather precisely, but that's too far off my Philonic Time-Lords theme.
Yahweh and Metatron. It seems even the Jews are debating whether Yahweh is actually the first power in heaven or not. I would assume they had some oral traditions, syncretic context (that is, Phoenicians had better memory back then and could be consulted), and even texts that inform their debate. So, they are somewhat aware of how the Baal Cycle speaks toward the identity of Metatron, even if they aren't seeing it that way.
The Jewish angle (in Sanchuniathon) is maddeningly weak and almost relic at this juncture, c.135 AD. I suppose Philo B. could be describing the Hellenistic mythos of an evolving Gnostic sect (c.125 AD) formerly an antinomian Jewish sect (c.25 AD) known to Philo J. a full century or three generations before. That's my Byblian hypothesis, yet unproven; other Phoenician clues found in Philo Judaeus would help!

Metatron lit can be dated; it's far too late. Metatron is first confirmed in the gnostic 3 Enoch (5th C. AD), but following Andrei Orlov, I suppose Metatron appears 3rd-4th C. AD. Closer but still off is Yahoel (M.'s precursor and not necessarily from the same place): maybe 2nd, definitely 3rd C. AD. Immediately preceding Yahoel, the Divine Intermediary is nebulous. (In Alexandria, I suppose it was initially Enoch, c.300 BC.)

On other threads I've made the case it is typically Melchizedek (after Enoch: the oldest tradition among these Intermediaries), but that's still theoretical and also irrelevant here. Sanchuniathon does link to Zedek myth - lightly, in passing - but that seems remote and would confirm Philo B. is writing from a recent and not 500 year-old narrative. Consider: Sanchuniathon does not offer a monotheistic god with an intermediary; Sanchuniathon is not even monolatrous, which again suggests gnosticism. Dated to 135 AD (AND not Philo B.'s fiction), then this is the real proto-gnostic cult cosmogony of a synagogue established by the 1st C. AD. In Philo J.'s day it was more Jewish ("El", possibly "Ieoud" as hints). Hence, my line of inquiry - given some topical similarities to Philo J.'s allegory - that MIGHT reveal lineage & history links.
To answer this question, we probably have to have a much better understanding of what Babylonian Jews were doing with the two powers of heaven, then how an Egyptian-Hermetic perspective would have interpreted that.
Fascinating topic, but a 500 page book. Or two! My narrow focus is: Philo B. is either revealing a (Byblos) gnostic group's cosmogony or merely synthesizing multiple folkloric strands locally available. (If he's inventing, this is a Fool's Errand.)
In Babylon, they're taking these two stages of Cronos - Yam and Hadad - and organizing them by a Zoroastrian scheme. A King of Kings and a regent.
Both important and possible for Sanchuniathon - deliberately or inadvertently. Although Zoroastrian penetration of Egypt (in Philo J.'s day) was very weak, by proximity Byblos was a very different story. But our source 'Sanchuniathon' references Egyptian Thoth not Zoroaster nor those myths in this section. Ergo, Philo B. is presenting (c.125 AD) smthg older: 'Graeco-Egyptian' and even Hermetic (c.50 AD?)

First and foremost I am looking for Philo J.'s earlier response (c.25 AD) or contra (Judeo-)Hermeticists: that would be my 'Smoking Gun'. They are (I believe) the unnamed "radical allegorists" Philo J. condemns in different works, real adversaries in Jewish Egypt and the Diaspora. And why shouldn't we find such an antinominan group in Byblos (c.25 BC-135 AD), at a relic synagogue for a mysterious "Ieoud" cult with blatant Egyptian-Hermetic links? Entirely plausible still.
There's also a late Syrian model which sees a similar concept out of Egypt which organizes divine powers into Triads which are able to represent elemental or philosophical principles. Hadad becomes King Helios, and the Triad becomes almost a trinity that makes all other divinities obsolete. This Syrian system (which led to Neoplatonism) is competing with Jewish mysticism. Hadad the regent (Metatron), is supplanting Yahweh as the one true god. Reinterpreted through Greek forms, Yahweh is the Gnostic demiurge. The third power is sent by the first power to overthrow the usurping second power.
I do suppose much of this (some variation thereof, not quite so directly as you imagine) did happen over time. Such as the Palmyrene Aglibol-Baalshamin-Malakbel triad, here:

Jewish sectarians (viz. different synagogues in different cities) may have had different names for that Sun-God portrayed in so many floor mosaics. I think it is WRONG to assume - as nearly every single scholar does - that this god was always called "Helios." On the contrary - we don't know that! For example, in Palmyra Syria (five days' journey) the Sun-God - my 'Fourth Power' - was worshiped as Yarhibol, Malakbel and Shamash/Helios. In Palmyra, there was a significant Jewish community at that time. What did they call their Sun-God, c.50 BC? We don't know, simply.
Philo {J.} appears to apply a Greek solution, in which the hierarchy represents an idealized regulation of powers. The presence of two powers in heaven suggests two substrates of existence sandwiched between manifest reality and Monad. This is what Philo {J.}'s trying to do.
Platonizing, in a Jewish way. Yes, I agree w/ this.

** Of course, Athenagoras of Athens (c.185 AD) cites Homer for the origin of (Philo B's) the basic cosmogony. But I see a tacit focus in Philo B. on the same Time-Lords that Philo J. arranged by lineage.

The four powers, in this context, seem pretty straightforward.

1st - God principle/Monad
2d - First power of heaven
3d - Second power heaven
4th - Manifest reality
billd89 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:58 amMy working trans.:
(30): “But God is the Father, and Craftsman, and Guardian {ἐπίτροπος} of all in Heaven and the True Cosmos. […] (31) God is the Demiurge {δημιουργὸς} and God of Time 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 Time 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 intelligible Cosmos and purposed that it should remain in his own {i.e. Chronos’} keeping. (32) So this younger son, the sensible Cosmos set in motion, brought that entity we call Time to the brightness of it’s rising.

First Power: Father/Craftsman/Demiurge, Guardian of the All-Cosmos.
Second Power (First Son): First Chronos, Administrator of Intelligible Cosmos.
Third Power (Second Son): Second Chronos, Master of Perceptible Cosmos.
Fourth Power: Manifest/Material Reality/Actual Time, Sunrise/Sunset, etc.
Though the names ought to be further clarified (and would vary by locale/tradition), I am seeing how Philo Judaeus meant to address a known and therefore older (c.25 BC- ?) Judeo-Phoenician Time-Lord lineage as such and counting Four Powers of Kronos God.

1) First Power = El Elyon ........... Evidence as "Father" ὁ πάντων πατὴρ (Pindar O. 2,17); "Demiurge": πολιὸς τεχνίτης (Diphilos, fr. 83 Kock); "Guardian":
2) Second Power = Ouranos ........ Evidence as "Administrator": on the Pythagorean idea that Time is identical to the sphere of Sky, Kronos = Ouranos, see Bongiovanni [2014], p.59.
3) Third Power = Kronos ............ Evidence as "Master": Founder of Byblos.
4) Fourth Power = Zeus-Helios ..... Evidence as "Charioteer" "Pilot": Baal Shamem/-Shamaim

1) Demiurge = Ποιητής Θεός = El Elyon. Though NOT identified as a 'First Principle' this is basically our Ultimate Time-Lord. If it were Greek, it should be Phanes (Protogonus, "first-born") of the World Egg; both Philos prefer the Jewish and omit the pagan Phanes.
2) First Son = so many floor mosaics pretty clearly indicate Ouranos. At Byblos, there was a Temple of "ZEUS Ouranios" (see Hill [1911], p.59); Philo B. curiously neglects the Greek 'Zeus'.
3) Second Son/Second Chronos, Master of Perceptible Cosmos = Kronos in Philo B. is Son of Ouranos, and YES (Colson's trans.) "Time stands to God in the relation of a grandson."
4) Manifest/Material Reality, etc. = Zeus-Helios the Charioteer" however he should be called. Philo Judaeus refers to the Charioteer function of God quite often. Kronos as πάρεδρος of Helios. What did different Jewish antinominians call that (hypostasis of) god abstracted below?


An recent but erroneous explanation can be adapted for our purpose. This gets a great deal backwards, viz. this scholar,connects the right dots but totally muddles the (reasons for) correspondence. See D. W. Aiken, “Philosophy, Archaeology, and the Bible. Is Emperor Julian’s Contra Galiaeos a Plausible Critique of Christianity?” Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 11 (2017) 1-37:
Although the literature largely substantiates the claim that the Ugaritic El emerges in the later Hebrew religion as El Elyon, which epithet is eventually transferred to Yahweh, the elyon epithet becomes problematic when applied to El in the context of the Ugaritic documents; because the Ugaritic evidence so clearly links Baal to the epithet ‘elyon’. Gray (1965, 157) is fairly exceptional, although not alone, in reading the epithet ’al’eyn, as also germane to El, the king of the Ugaritic gods. “In this royal figure, who is at the same time the Creator of Created Things (bny bnwt), we may recognize ‘El Elyon, called the Most High, who according to Eusebius’ citation from Philo of Byblos was senior god in the Canaanite pantheon, or El Elyon, El the Most High, Creator of Heaven and Earth...” Virolleaud (1968, 553) marshals additional supportive evidence from epithets to suggest that in RS 24.252, “rpu.mlk.‘lm,” the epithet Rpu, the king of the world, “désigne sans doute le Père des dieux,” i.e., El.73 He also links this reference with the rather predictable ab.w il,74 ‘father and god’ epithet, as well as with another superlative epithet for El found in the newer RS texts, which is ilm.rbm, 'master of the gods'” ... Following the majority of scholars, Lack argues that, “Elioun philonien a de grandes chances d’être Baal (Baalsamen) auquel Philon, selon l’usage de son temps, applique l’épithète ‘ypsistos’,” although there are still some who continue to maintain that this epithet is not applied unreservedly to Baal in the Ugaritic literature. Therefore its use is not without ambiguity; which of course leads scholars into a confusing explanation of roles. ...
It would seem, however, that a certain material confusion or perhaps fusion arose in the historical transition from the subordinated Yahweh of LXX Deut. 32:8-9, to the Most High god of the Jews in the Diaspora, who were influenced by the LXX. These believed that their Yahweh was supreme, and used “ὁ ὕψισθος as a divine name for the God of their fathers.” Finally, this Hebrew Most High evolved into the Galilean God, whom they mis-identified as Hypsistos, equated with Yahweh, and addressed as Father. Julian is aware through his reading of Eusebius that the Phoenician Philo of Byblos gives a Greek god-name to Elyon-Hypsistos, which is to say Kronos. Kronos is certainly not, by his standard attributes, the Creator-Hypsistos of Greek religion; but in the now familiar passage from the Praeparatio Evangelica (1.10:15-30), of which Julian was certainly aware, Eusebius details Philo’s depiction of Kronos as the offspring of Elioun (=Elyon). To Elioun Philo attributes the status of Hypsistos, while he identifies Kronos with Elos, which is to say El; so it is clear that Philo does not equate Kronos with Hypsistos, notwithstanding that kingship will fall to Kronos after he deposes his father Ouranos. According to Cumont there is some evidence that the Phoenician Philo may have confused the Phoenician god El, grk. Ἠλος, with the Greek sun god Helios, hence (mis)reading [h]elios for elos, which would explain what Cumont holds to be a mistake in Philo. Cumont also maintains that there is sufficient inscriptional evidence for the melding of El and Helios, and concludes that Philo’s further blending of Kronos and H[e]lios-Ἠλος-El would be attributable to a Greek misunderstanding. Textual evidence from Julian’s writings, however, such as Oration IV – “Hymn to King Helios,” would seem to indicate that for Julian, ‘God’ is certainly the Mithraic Helios; likewise, if the Phoenician Philo did indeed confound his Greek gods, an assertion which Boll flatly denies, then at least Julian did not follow him in that error.

Think it through this way, instead.
Point #1: (Jewish?) Philo Byblos correctly indicates 'El Elyon' as Supreme God, as a) current name known to the Byblos antinomian synagogue and/or b) the Name in old Judeo-Egyptian documents he referenced. (Baal is really not important here.)
Point #2: Philo Byblos correctly indicates the relation of Kronos to 'El Elyon' (as grandson) and Ouranos (as son), consistent with the 100 year older version of Philo J. reconstructed above.
Point #3: Philo Byblos correctly merges El + Helios as the archeological evidence (floor mosaics) show. Kronos is in the Phoenician lineage that Alexandrian Philo J. had earlier (co-incidentally) explained more precisely but minus the (Judeo-) Hermetic framework Philo B. admits. Perhaps both saw a Quelle version on the topic?
Point #4: While Philo Byblos may indeed betray some "Greek misunderstanding", that's because he's NOT a local Greek!

At a time of murderous persecution (Hadrian c. 135 AD), an instructional Judeo-Phoenician cosmogony was presented to help Jews hide, to survive. This would indicate a friendly cult cover when/where overt Jewishness was dangerous, even fatal. Coded to those who feared being burnt alive, Philo B. reported that the El-Kronos god compelled circumcision: "But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Ouranos, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same." Among the El-Kronos cult were those circumcised and practicing circumcision. How prevalent was circumcision in Phoenicia otherwise, c.135 AD? Obviously, the Circumcized Jew was safer in a circumcized community, etc.
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: God as Chronos in Philo, Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis 30ff

Post by yakovzutolmai »

Interesting. The last "4 powers" list you have does seem to correspond with Sanchuniathon's ranking. I see now why it has raised so much interest. Some Canaanite myths have Baal and Yam report to El. Yahweh also reports to El Elyon. However, Sanchuniathon ranks Elioun as highest of all, above Uranus. And Philo appears to be reflecting this.

By the way, someone from another thread brought up something fascinating:
davidmartin wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:15 pm And Hilfai...
"This name derives from the Ancient Greek “Alpheiós / Alfeiós (Ἀλφειός)”, meaning “resourceful, changing, whitish”. Alphaios was in Greek mythology a river (the modern Alfeiós River) and river-god. Alpheius was a passionate hunter and fell in love with the nymph Arethusa [the waterer], but she fled from him to the island of Ortygia near Syracuse, and metamorphosed herself into a well, whereupon Alpheius became a river, which flowing from Peloponnesus under the sea to Ortygia, there united its waters with those of the well Arethusa"

Behind the myth there's undoubtedly a basic spiritual idea not unique to the telling hey that fits with Theudas name etymology
The case perhaps could be made Theudas was about capturing some essence of previous myth based spirituality he saw as being behind the more stately traditions and could cross cultural boundaries with ease. Paul then is copying this approach as he blends gentiles with isreal removing the distinction and law and calling it 'the two becoming one' like the river meeting the well. he just twists it i guess denying perhaps the roots as it were, since to Paul Christ is a previously hidden mystery while one might imagine a Theudas who see's Christ as basically revealed in all religions at their source, but Paul cannot be this syncretic (even though he claims everything was created through Christ!)
If integrated uncritically with Sanchuniathon, this is saying that Alphaeus is a substitution for Cronus (perhaps Yam as the god of rivers), and that Theudas is your Ieoud/Adonis of Byblos. Either way, the use of the names Alphaeus and Theudas seem to invoke whatever tradition has inspired Sanchuniathon.
User avatar
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Ieoud, Kronos, random notes

Post by billd89 »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:08 amIf integrated uncritically with Sanchuniathon, this is saying that Alphaeus is a substitution for Cronus (perhaps Yam as the god of rivers), and that Theudas is your Ieoud/Adonis of Byblos. Either way, the use of the names Alphaeus and Theudas seem to invoke whatever tradition has inspired Sanchuniathon.
The coincidence of River Gods with Nymphs is not at all unusual. On the contrary, consorts/pairs were the norm in such syncretistic beliefs rationalized by Hellenistic literati. So Alpheios is a powerful masculine force; Adon is a child or young man: unfortunately, these are not the same, at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheus_(deity)

Back to the Philo B.’s Sanchuniathon. We assume a ‘Priest of Ieou’ (Yao) represented a real Judaic/Semitic relic cult at Afqa (or Byblos) AND preserved a primordial Christos-type (Ieoud?) myth c.135 AD.

This is wildly speculative: intriguing surely, but problematic. The primary issue is Time and Place. We must begin at Afqa/Byblos/Phoencia during the 2nd C. AD and trace backwards carefully. Is there something confirmed elsewhere, besides Philo Byblos?

That local culture had several conflicting legends, as Lucian of Samosata clearly insinuates. We can presume at least four (4) evolved or synthetic versions, locally: a) an indigenous (pagan) mountain folk mythos (prehistoric), b) an urban Judeo-Semitic (quasi-indigenous) interpretation, c) an Egypto-Phoenician variant (imported), and d) a ‘Greek understanding’ (recent).

Lucian implies the local Adonis and Mountain Mythos (a,d) were identical, but notes the existence of a differing Egyptian mythos (c). So a Dying/Reviving God Myth is certain, linked to both Cinyras and a definite Rebirth Mystery-Cult (“the secret rites of Adonis”) which catered to ‘tourists’. This was NOT Egyptian (c); Lucian indicates competing Egyptian myth otherwise.

We can see a vermillion/bleeding river cult must have been prehistoric. Egyptian evidence proves the ‘Lady of Byblos’ (var. Astarte) was older than 1400 BC; the ‘red river phenomenon’ must have been witness by the first homo sapiens settling in the area. So it began as a (feminine) menstrual/fertility cult in distant prehistory which acquired a hunter symbol later (Tammuz c.1100 BC? Cinyras cited, c.800 BC?): we can only guess when.

Lucian (c.160 AD) states “they sacrifice in the first place to Adonis, as to one who has departed this life: after this, they allege that he is alive again, and exhibit his effigy to the sky.” There was no human sacrifice, that practice (to Tammuz) was long ago abandoned. The sacrifice here is symbolic. Note that nothing says the demi-god is ritually killed (sacrificed) by his followers; only that he has died then is reborn. The sacred Effigy of the Risen God is shown to the Sky (God); this particular Sky God is not named by Lucian. Nor is the connection explained: Lucian says he mastered the secret rites of Adonis but that may be untrue. He’s either guarding a secret relationship or ignorant; I presume he is lying. (Cinyras/Theias should be Adon’s father; neither are sky-gods, and Zeus/Hadad is omitted here.) Who is the Sky God ‘father’?

I will suggest ‘Sanchuniathon’ tells us WHO. Philo B. says “Astarte, the greatest goddess, and Zeus Demares {Zeus-Poseidon: Sea form}, and Zeus Adados {Zeus-Hadad: Sky form}, King of gods, reigned over the country with the consent of El-Kronos.”

First, El Elyon-Kronos is superior to the King (‘Zeus’ in either Sea or Sky form) just as the Greek Kronos is Zeus’ father. Second, Astarte is Consort (and Nursemaid to the presumed, unnamed Child God ‘Adon.’ Third, we can ignore the God of the Seas, ‘Zeus De Mares’: we are focused on the Rain God, the Mountain God.

‘Zeus-Adodos’ (formerly Ba‘al Hadad; Hebrew: בעל הדד; Ugaritic Haddu; Roman Jupiter) was known to Romans as Jupiter Heliopolitanus. To consider the possibility a local conflation was Adodos/Agrotes/Adonis, see A. Baumgarten The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (1981), p.172: “The Byblians worship Agrotes or ‘Hero of Agros’ as a god. His shrine is drawn by a pair of oxen. This shrine has been identified by Du Mesnil du Buisson [1970] as the shrine of Jupiter Heliopolitanus which is also represented as drawn by a pair of animals. Philo, according to Du Mesnil du Buisson, was supposedly describing the Jupiter of Baalbek, and even when Philo says that this god is especially worshipped by the Byblians he is still referring to that god: ‘Byblians’ stands for Phoenicians.” According to Macrobius, at Baalbek/Heliopolis (52km/25mi. from Afqa) the cult’s gold statue came from (Alexandria) Egypt and showed the god as a beardless, young man, ‘with its right hand raised and holding a whip, like a charioteer’; c.70 BC this Ba'al-Hadad-Zeus-Jupiter was already a highly syncretic fertility god, lord of thunder and rain, supreme deity and a sun god.

I don’t agree it’s proven, but the correspondence was long ago stated. Agrotes = Adonis, see Johann Baptist von Weiß, Weltgeschichte: Erster Band: Geschichte des Orients [1890], p.466; Adodos = Adonis, see Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte: “Die” vorchristliche Zeit, Vol. 1[1859], p.127. Also see Geo. A. Barton, “The Genesis of the God Eshmun” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 21 [1900], p.189 Adodos = Adonis = Eshmun thesis. If this is correct, Ba'al-Hadad-Zeus-Jupiter was a dying and reborn youth of Afqa: Adonis.

Two other possibilities are known:
1) Perhaps Afqa preserved an Eshmun-Adon & Apollo Myth (Father of Air kills the Son, who is healed/reborn). This isn’t the King killing his firstborn, but it is a Son Sacrifice. Incidentally, this would be like Eshmun- ‘Baal of Sidon’, 100km/50mi. away.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environmen ... aps/eshmun
2) Heracles-Melquart of Tyre: Melqart ritually died each year (in a burning) to be reborn.

See Soyez, Byblos et la fête des Adonies [2015].
See John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan [2000] Link

Recall our hypothetical Judaic/Semitic relic cult at Byblos should know ‘Adonis’ of the Hellenized variant of this Myth (c.135 AD) as Judeo-Semitic ‘Ideoud’. Yet Adonis = Ieoud is not stated, merely inferred. So how does our theoretical synthesis of Adodos/Adonis/Eshmun arrive at our imagined ‘Sacrifical Son = Ieoud’? The Phoenician (indigenous pagan) angle – archeological evidence – remains unproven. And the Sacrificial Son is unsupported, still.

Again, Sanchuniathon’s Kronos-El has an Only Begotten Son ‘Ieoud’ by Anobret (Aphrodite Aphakitis/Astarte = Venus} – and the child is killed/sacrificed by the King. Ieoud is ?

“Kronos offers his Only Begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Ouranos, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same.”
“Kronos then (the Phoenicians “El”), king of the country and who subsequently after death was deified as Saturn the star, by a local nymph named Anobret had an Only-Begotten son, called for that reason ‘Ieoud’ (‘Only-Begotten’ still so-called among Phoenicians) And when very great dangers from war had beset the country, El-Kronos arrayed his son {‘Ieoud’} in royal apparel, prepared an altar, and sacrificed him.”

I’m no closer to resolving this, but Saturn (black) = Samael = Satan. Interesting: El-Kronos is ultimately demonized by the Murderous Father Myth?

The Roman/Greek myth of Saturn-Venus also preserves a castration motif.

Rabbi Rosenberg goes on to make the very same point as Dr. Patai: “Yahweh, the God of Israel, was from a very early period identified with El, the high father-god of Canaan and Phoenicia” (1972: 108) (and again I make the same objection: how early a period? What is the source? How complete an identification? Furthermore, Dr. Rosenberg does not seem to be aware that Yawe was also known in Ugaritic. Thus he eventually comes to the conclusion that the belief in the Saturn-Jupiter conjunction being the sign of the Messiah’s coming is based on the association of Saturn with “El or Yahweh … still the universal ruler” … “while the planet Jupiter, called Zedek, represents his ‘son’, the Messiah” (1972: 109). The hypothesis presented by Dr. Rosenberg becomes far more congruent and symmetrical if we take the Ugaritic parallel in mind and identify Yawe with Jupiter (Iovi/Jove in Latin) rather than with Saturn, which is rather the equivalent of El and Kronos.

Other interesting points:
Where (Father) El-Kronos is Saturn and (Son) Yahweh is Jupiter, then Roman-Phoenician Jupiter Heliopolitanus (Ba'al-Hadad-Zeus-Jupiter; Adodos) = Yahweh, by substitution.
Jupiter as (Melchi)Zedek is the older Canaanite variant, First Son, c.1100-900 BC.
Yahweh-ism (Second Son) came later c.800-700 BC?, bumping aside Melchizedek-Logos, then replacing El-Kronos ‘Evil Dad’ c.500 BC?
And lastly, the Christos (New Son) supplants Melchizedek-Logos altogether in Epistle to the Hebrews.
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Ieoud, Kronos, random notes

Post by yakovzutolmai »

billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:50 pm Other interesting points:
Where (Father) El-Kronos is Saturn and (Son) Yahweh is Jupiter, then Roman-Phoenician Jupiter Heliopolitanus (Ba'al-Hadad-Zeus-Jupiter; Adodos) = Yahweh, by substitution.
Jupiter as (Melchi)Zedek is the older Canaanite variant, First Son, c.1100-900 BC.
Yahweh-ism (Second Son) came later c.800-700 BC?, bumping aside Melchizedek-Logos, then replacing El-Kronos ‘Evil Dad’ c.500 BC?
And lastly, the Christos (New Son) supplants Melchizedek-Logos altogether in Epistle to the Hebrews.
I think one way to interpret the differences between these cults is to think of them as sectarian, rather than canonical differences. This is certainly the case considering the ease by which many ancients engaged in syncretism. A Jew converting to the cult of Jupiter Heliopolitanus might be like a Mormon becoming a Greek Orthodox.

The Roman investment in Baalbek was unprecedented, which makes sense if the god there presents as a viable alternative to both Hadad and Yahweh. This cult center is competing with Hatra and Jerusalem.

Another comment on the Cronus issue. I see Yaw as part of the Baal Cycle and more related to Cronus himself. Maybe even Osiris (Judge Nahar).

During the Sea Peoples' invasion, one group the Shekelesh came possibly from Sicily. Sicily/Southern Italy (forgive me, but it's decent evidence) has the closest genetic links to Ashkenazi Jews (the Iraqi Jews having closer links to Syrians/Semites). The myths of Daedalus also describe his presence in Sicily. Of course, I equate Daedalus with Kothar-wa-Khasis and Ptah.

So, here's a hypothesis: refugees from an elite class of Minoans with links to ancient Byblos and Memphis flee to Sicily and govern the Southern Italian migrants who live there. During the Bronze Age Collapse, a significant group of these invade Lebanon.

The syncretism they accomplish is to take Yam and supplant him with their Iaow (Zeus Demares, or "Atlantean" Poseidon). Both are sea gods. In this way, the former father becomes the second son. Yam and Iaow being different gods who are conflated is the source of the confusion, leading to later elevation of Metatron. Christianity represents one resolution to this confusion which sectarianism alone could not solve.

Also to consider: Apollo as the union of Zeus and Leto (the daughter of, let us say, Logos and Sophia - the anthropomorphized apple of Eden). Adonis-as-Jupiter allows for Apollo the son as the gnostic savior who reverses the mistakes of the fathers. Could one syncretize Jupiter Heliopolitanus with Atum (Adam) of (Egyptian) Heliopolis?

Invoking Brigham Young, Adam is our Yahweh, and Eve via the apple is Leto, daughter of Logos and Sophia.

Another way to interpret this is the seasonal cycle of Canaanite Cronus, via syncretism with Egypt, is replaced such that the cycle ends and is replaced with the divine investiture of gnosis into Christ the "New Son".
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Ieoud/ledud

Post by yakovzutolmai »

billd89 wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:29 am Anobret's source? The Afqa Grotto/Waterfall in the Byblos District of Lebanon.
Just came from a look into Pege/Myria of Bethlehem. Julius Africanus relates a tale (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm).
For during the whole night the images, both of gods and goddesses, continued heating the-ground, saying to each other, Come, let us congratulate Juno. And they say to me, Prophet, come forward; congratulate Juno, for she has been embraced. And I said, How can she be embraced who no longer exists? To which they reply, She has come to life again, and is no longer called Juno, but Urania. For the mighty Sol has embraced her. Then the goddesses say to the gods, making the matter plainer, Pege is she who is embraced; for did not Juno espouse an artificer? And the gods say, That she is rightly called Pege, we admit. Her name, moreover, is Myria; for she bears in her womb, as in the deep, a vessel of a myriad talents' burden. And as to this title Pege, let it be understood thus: This stream of water sends forth the perennial stream of spirit,—a stream containing but a single fish, taken with the hook of Divinity, and sustaining the whole world with its flesh as though it were in the sea. You have well said, She has an artificer [in espousal]; but by that espousal she does not bear an artificer on an equality with herself. For this artificer who is born, the son of the chief artificer, framed by his excellent skill the roof of the third heavens, and established by his word this lower world, with its threefold sphere of habitation.
nd when they saw the star above Pege, and the diadem with the star and the stone, and the statues lying on the floor, they said: O king, a root (offspring) divine and princely has risen, bearing the image of the King of heaven and earth. For Pege-Myria is the daughter of the Bethlehemite Pege. And the diadem is the mark of a king, and the star is a celestial announcement of portents to fall on the earth. Out of Judah has arisen a kingdom which shall subvert all the memorials of the Jews. And the prostration of the gods upon the floor prefigured the end of their honour. For he who comes, being of more ancient dignity, shall displace all the recent. Now therefore, O king, send to Jerusalem. For you will find the Christ of the Omnipotent God borne in bodily form in the bodily arms of a woman. And the star remained above the statue of Pege, called the Celestial, until the wise men came forth, and then it went with them.

And then, in the depth of evening, Dionysus appeared in the temple, unaccompanied by the Satyrs, and said to the images: Pege is not one of us, but stands far above us, in that she gives birth to a man whose conception is in divine fashion. O priest Prupupius! What are you doing tarrying here? An action, indicated in writings of old, has come upon us, and we shall be convicted as false by a person of power and energy. Wherein we have been deceivers, we have been deceivers; and wherein we have ruled, we have ruled. No longer give we oracular responses. Gone from us is our honour. Without glory and reward are we become. There is One, and One only, who receives again at the hands of all His proper honour. For the rest, be not disturbed. No longer shall the Persians exact tribute of earth and sky. For He who established these things is at hand, to bring practical tribute to Him who sent Him, to renew the ancient image, and to put image with image, and bring the dissimilar to similarity. Heaven rejoices with earth, and earth itself exults at receiving matter of exultation from heaven. Things which have not happened above, have happened on earth beneath. He whom the order of the blessed has not seen, is seen by the order of the miserable. Flame threatens those; dew attends these. To Myria is given the blessed lot of bearing Pege in Bethlehem, and of conceiving grace of grace. Judaea has seen its bloom, and this country is fading. To Gentiles and aliens, salvation has come; to the wretched, relief is ministered abundantly. With right do women dance, and say, Lady Pege, Spring-bearer, you mother of the heavenly constellation. You cloud that brings us dew after heat, remember your dependents, O mistress.
They are taking Anobret-of-Bethlehem and elevating her to Queen of Heaven.

The Church of Nativity in Bethlehem is built upon a former Adonis cult site, presumably a spring.

This reinforces the origin of the name Alphaeus.
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Ieoud/ledud

Post by yakovzutolmai »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:10 am
They are taking Anobret-of-Bethlehem and elevating her to Queen of Heaven.

The Church of Nativity in Bethlehem is built upon a former Adonis cult site, presumably a spring.

This reinforces the origin of the name Alphaeus.
Hadad is promised that his kingdom will be without end. David is also made the same promise. David is the second Adam and comes out of Bethlehem.

I don't think David was a historical king. So, I think David is our Messiah archetype, the transposition of Adonis into Jerusalemite religious sensibilities. Then he's placed into history by Hellenistic times. The Lady of Bethlehem being the Jewish-Davidic archetype of the typical oriental mother in the divine triad associated with Hadad/Adonis.

So, what this talk of Pege is doing is announcing to all those who acknowledge the divine triad that it is the Lady of Bethlehem (vs. of Ashkelon, of Petra, of Hatra, of Byblos, etc.) who is the true Queen of Heaven, because Christ-as-David is the true son of god.

Maybe this influenced our "Sanchuthianon"
User avatar
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Kronos & Egypt, random notes

Post by billd89 »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:09 pmA Jew converting to the cult of Jupiter Heliopolitanus might be like a Mormon becoming a Greek Orthodox.
Some Egyptian Jews worshiped Joseph/Serapis (before 115 AD; Egyptian-Jews disappear after that date.) In the Late 19th and Early 20th C., the German Religionsgeschichtliche Schule elaborated many theses around religious syncretism which subsequently fell to anti-German sentiment. There were many more evolving forms of Judaism than academic scholars will admit, still. Specifically, we need to know more about antinomian Jews and Judaic groups in Coastal Phoenicia c.100 BC-100 AD.
The Roman investment in Baalbek was unprecedented, which makes sense if the god there presents as a viable alternative to both Hadad and Yahweh. This cult center is competing with Hatra and Jerusalem.
This is important, and why! Jerusalem was wiped out as a cult center 70 AD; before the Greeks, 'Heliopolis' had a Temple of Baʿal Haddu converted to Helios (c.300 BC), then "Heliopolitan Zeus" (c.200 BC??) then "Jupiter" (60 AD): even "Hadad" was long gone from the civic religion c.100 AD. There were Jews in Baalbek: we don't have comprehensive information on their practices c.125 AD.
Could one syncretize Jupiter Heliopolitanus with Atum (Adam) of (Egyptian) Heliopolis?
If Graeco-Egyptians were ruling both cities for generations, YES. But the Alexandrian manufacture of a statue (the highly syncretistic Heliopolitan Zeus) might be merely a gift, actually not the continuity and deep connection we might hope for. otoh, I feel certain the Alexandrian Greeks were NOT promoting Egyptian Atum c.100 AD.
Another way to interpret this is the seasonal cycle of Canaanite Cronus, via syncretism with Egypt, is replaced such that the cycle ends and is replaced with the divine investiture of gnosis into Christ the "New Son".
The Christos Myth! YES, this is what is key. The connection between Byblos and Alexandria was VERY STRONG; a strong Osiris cult existed in Byblos c.125 AD, and evidence shows Egyptian religion had been influential there for millennia. This needs to be explored further, in detail.
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Kronos & Egypt, random notes

Post by yakovzutolmai »

billd89 wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:00 am
Could one syncretize Jupiter Heliopolitanus with Atum (Adam) of (Egyptian) Heliopolis?
If Graeco-Egyptians were ruling both cities for generations, YES. But the Alexandrian manufacture of a statue (the highly syncretistic Heliopolitan Zeus) might be merely a gift, actually not the continuity and deep connection we might hope for. otoh, I feel certain the Alexandrian Greeks were NOT promoting Egyptian Atum c.100 AD.
I mean to say Adam as a contrasting figure to Thoth. Thoth/Hammon being a contrasting system to Ptah/Atum. I identify the Adonis/Hadad tradition with the House of Ptah, which includes the earliest version of the Osiris myth.

In contrast, Thoth-Moses is a competing tradition. Judaism being a strained synthesis, another attempt at syncretizing generally Upper Egyptian with Lower Egyptian/Canaanite forms.

Adam/Enoch/Israel/David being expressions of the same entity called Atum but also recognized as Jupiter Heliopolitanus. In that the ancients recognized the connection, and were able to consciously link the cult at Baalbek with the one at Heliopolis - oddly enough the location of the temple of Onias.

Of course, they did not invoke "Atum-Ra".
User avatar
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

'God' Correspondences w/ Plato’s System (Cratylus)

Post by billd89 »

#$#%#@! Sorry - I deleted a Post (it went into Edit mode), information lost...

Re: my inferred 4th Power, Plato in his Symposium and other works informs that many, including Socrates, would greet the Sun and offer (Helios) prayers each day.

George Boys-Stones, “Harpocration of Argos: Etymology and Metaphysics in the Platonist Revival” in The Journal of Hellenic Studies,Vol. 132 [2012], pp.1-6

The principal testimonium for Harpocration 's metaphysical views {c.185 AD} comes from Proclus' commentary on Timaeus 28c, where Plato refers to the 'father and maker' of the cosmos. Proclus himself thinks that these designations ('father' and 'maker') refer to one and the same god, namely the Creator-God, or Demiurge. But he is aware of earlier Platonists who think that they refer to two different gods, one of whom is 'Father', the other of whom is 'Maker'. In effect, says Proclus, this amounts to positing a double creator. Numenius {c.160 AD} is the worst – or anyway the most prominent - offender (Proclus, On the Timaeus 1.303.27-304.5 Diehl =Numenius fr. 21 des Places:

“Numenius raises a hymn to three gods. He calls the first 'father', the second 'maker' and the third 'artefact' - for according to him the cosmos is the third god.2 According to him, then, the creator is double, the first god and the second, while what is created is the third. (It is better to put it like this than to use his own rather dramatic language: ancestor , offspring , descendant.) “

But it is not only Numenius. Proclus goes on to say that Harpocration is guilty of something similar (On the Timaeus 1.304.22-305.6 Diehl = Harpocration 22T Gioè = fr. 14 Dillon):
"I would be amazed if Harpocration can have been pleased with himself for constructing theories like this about the Demiurge. For he follows this man [i.e. Numenius] in handing down three gods, and insofar as he makes the creator double: but he calls the first god Ouranos and Kronos, the second Dia {Zeus} and Zen {Zeus}, the third 'heaven' [ouranos] and cosmos. But then he changes and calls the first {Ouranos} Zeus, and ‘king of what is intelligible’, and the second ‘ruler’. Zeus, Kronos and Ouranos thus become the same as each other, for all of these are the first principle, the thing to which Parmenides denies all predicates, every name, every attribute, every description. We ourselves cannot tolerate calling the first principle even ‘Father’, but he declares the same thing to be father, son and grandson."

Numenius’ System (identified as 'muddled'):
First Power: Father/ Demiurge, King of Intelligible ................................................... (Zeus-) Ouranos - Kronos
Second Power (Son): Ruler, Administrator ............................................................ (Zeus) Dia-Zen
Third Power (Grand Son): Cosmos ..................................................................... Ouranos - Kosmos
(Fourth Power) Manifest Reality, etc. .................................................................. (Helios?)

As far as I am aware, it has not been noticed before, but all of the names and titles used by Harpocration are derived from a single passage of Plato's Cratylus (395e-96c):

The name of Zeus is just like a sentence. People divide it up: some use one part, some the other. For some people call him Zen and others call him Dia. But if you put the two together, it reveals the nature of the god, which is just what we are saying a name ought to accomplish. For no-one is more the cause of life for us and everything else than the ruler and king of all. So this god turns out to be correctly named: through him live all animals. But this designation is divided in two, as I say: Dia is made one name and Zen another. He is the son of Kronos, which might seem offensive at first blush, but actually it makes sense: Zeus is the offspring of a great intelligence. For Koros does not signify a 'child', but the purity and unmixed quality of intellect. Kronos is the son of Ouranos, as the story goes, and looking upwards is well called by this name, ourania i.e. seeing what is above. That, Hermogenes, is how astronomers say that a pure intellect comes about: so Ouranos is rightly named.”

Plato’s System (Cratylus):
First Power: ............................................................................................. Ouranos
Second Power (Son): .................................................................................. Kronos (Sia?)
Third Power (Grand Son): Ruler and King ........................................................... Zeus = Dia (Through)-Zen (to Live)
(Fourth Power) Manifest Reality, etc. .............................................................. (Helios?)

We can see a similarity in Philo's schema with Plato's Cratylus, but there's some difference also. Boys-Stones (2012) adds Plutarch's Isis and Osiris 372E- 73E, but I will treat the Egyptian material separately.
Last edited by billd89 on Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:57 pm, edited 12 times in total.
User avatar
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Ieoud, more random notes

Post by billd89 »

Another's excellent post is long and I edit it for focus. I suspect our mysterious c.125 AD "Ieoud/ledud" (Beloved or First-Born Son of the God-King) is enmeshed in several of these myth complexes. I can also imagine how variants of these myths, in Syria/Asia Minor, may have influenced or be incorporated into the 'Jesus Christos' story.
nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:58 am In this post I wanted to provide the "evidence" for why I see Jesus as being influenced by other saviors/heroes. I'm going to show that often times the savior/hero:
  • Is born to a mortal woman impregnated by god
  • Is the descendant of royalty or is going to be future king
  • Has his life threatened when he's born and has to be hidden away
  • A prophecy is given saying that the savior/hero will do great things
  • Performs miracles like raising people from the dead, healing the blind, turning water into wine, etc
  • Dies and resurrects or overcomes death
Given that NOT ALL elements must be present in the ‘same’ Myth, a strong congruency must yet be established. The key elements for a purported "Ieoud/ledud" Myth should include
  • Phoenician lineage; associated w/ River Fertility
  • Royal/ Divine descent, to be future king
  • Life threatened or sacrificed in Social Crisis, by Father
  • Performs miracles: rising from dead, healing sick, turning river red, etc.
  • Rebirth, through Piety and Practices of locals; Overcomes Death
  • Has Mystery-Cult?
Other examples are informative.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles# ... _childhood:
Heracles was the son of the affair Zeus had with the mortal woman Alcmene...
Herakles is important with a caveat that Byblos may NOT have shared the Tyre myth exactly, in all particulars, but the parentage of Zeus + Herakles would match Hadad + Melqart.

See Emma Stafford, Herakles [2013], p.157:
Whatever other traits the two deities {i.e. Herakles of Tyre and Melqart} shared, a major point of contact, which suggested their identity to the Greeks, seems to have been the belief that they had been burnt on a pyre and subsequently resurrected.
See Javier Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East [1977]p.35:
Of the youth god Melqart we know that Eudoxus of Cnidos (ca. 355 B.C.) is quoted by Athenaeus (392d) as saying that the Phoenicians "sacrificed quails to Heracles, because Heracles, the son of Asteria and Zeus, went into Libya and was killed by Typhon."... According to Athennaeus, the episode of Heracles' death did not end there, for Iolaus "brought a quail to him and having put it close to him, he smelt it and came to life again." The quail sacrifice thus would commemorate the death and resurrection of Heracles. This event was probably celebrated in an annual festival at Tyre to which Josephus seems to refer in his Jewish Antiquities (8.146).
A connection of Phoenician Tyre’s Melqart to the Western Libyan Herakles (Lepcis Magna, Sabratha, and ??) c.400 BC is intriguing, but the Afqa Adonis was not a warrior, not adult, not the son of Zeus-Asteria (i.e. gods). Also, Libyan Herakles/ Melqart was not ‘sacrificed’ but rather has a role similar to Osiris.

Dionysus :
From http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Dionysos.html and http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Zagreus.html:
Dionysos was a son of Zeus and the princess Semele of Thebes...ZAGREUS, "the first-born Dionysos," was a god of the Orphic Mysteries. He was a son of Zeus and Persephone who had been seduced by the god in the guise of a serpent.
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 2. 3 (trans. Oldfather) : “Zeus taking up the child, handed it over to Hermes, and ordered him to take it to the cave in Nysa, which lay between Phoenicia and the River Nile, where he should deliver it to the Nymphai (Nymphs) that they should rear it and with great solicitude bestow upon it the best of care.” A river-nymph, connecting Phoenicia and the Nile? That’s precise. Phoenician variants of the Dionysos myth may have incorporated more local detail (now lost.) However, Dionysus was associated with Osiris, killed by the Titans (Kronos was a Titan) and reborn. An “Osiris” (=Adonis) cult is confirmed by period sources at Byblos. Elements of the Dionysus Myth reappear in Sanchuniathon. And epithets such as Dionysus Adoneus, Dionysus Agrios suggest Dionysus=Adonis at Afqa. Furthermore, Dionysus is associated with phallic statuary (De Dea Syria 28) near Aleppo; the Temple of Obelisks in Byblos probably venerated Dionysus= Adonis.
nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:58 am The reason I have Osiris, Horus, and the Pharaoh grouped together is because often times the Pharaoh was said to be Horus or the son of god while he was alive and Osiris when he died and resurrected. I'm also going to sometimes add an Egyptian hero named Si-Osire to Osiris/Horus/ Pharoah.
From "Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt" By Geraldine Pinch:
His epithet, "Horus who is upon the papyrus," alludes to the myth that Isis hid the infant Horus in the papyrus thickets of Akh-bit[Chemmis], an island among the marshes.
From https://www.ancient.eu/Horus/:
Isis endured a difficult pregnancy with exceptionally long labor and gave birth to Horus alone in the swamps of the Delta. She hid herself and her son from Set and his demons in the thickets, only going out at night for food accompanied by a bodyguard of seven scorpions who were given her by the goddess Selket. Selket (and, in some versions of the story, Neith) watched over Horus while Isis went out. Isis, Selket, and Neith nurtured Horus and educated him in their exile until he was grown to manhood and was strong enough to challenge his uncle for his father's kingdom.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metternich_Stela:
Set was content thinking he would become the pharaoh of the living, but what he didn't know was that Isis was pregnant with Osiris's child. He would become pharaoh of the living because of his birthright. After Isis gave birth to Horus, it was thought that he would become the new pharaoh of the living, but once Set found out he became very angry. At this point the actual spell starts on the Magical Stela. Set had the child poisoned by a scorpion, which is often associated with the serpent demon, Apophis. Isis was outraged with grief at the death of her child. She called out to Ra and asked him for his aid. He sent Thoth who restored the child to life. From that point Ra would act as an advocate to Horus, just as his father Osiris would've done if alive.


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius#Birth:
He was the son of Apollo and, according to the earliest accounts, a mortal woman named Coronis
From Aelian, On Animals 10.49 (trans. Scholfield) (Greek natural history C2nd A.D.):
The god [Apollon] can not only save life but is also the begetter of Asklepios (Asclepius), man's saviour and champion against diseases.
From Pindar, Pythian Ode 3. 5 ff (trans. Conway) (Greek lyric C5th B.C.):
His mother, daughter of Phlegyas the horseman...even though her maiden bed she had already shared with Apollon[the god Apollo] of the flowing hair, and bore within her the god's holy seed
From Ovid, Metamorphoses 2. 620 ff (trans. Melville):
So when she felt the prophetic frenzy in her mind, and was on fire with the god enclosed in her breast, she looked at the infant boy and cried out ‘Grow and thrive, child, healer of all the world! Human beings will often be in your debt, and you will have the right to restore the dead. But if ever it is done regardless of the god’s displeasure you will be stopped, by the flame of your grandfather’s lightning bolt, from doing so again. From a god you will turn to a bloodless corpse, and then to a god who was a corpse, and so twice renew your fate.
Pindar, Pythian Ode 3. 5 ff (trans. Conway) (Greek lyric C5th B.C.):
Long ago he [Kheiron (Chiron)] nursed gentle Asklepios (Asclepius), that craftsman of new health for weary limbs and banisher of pain, the godlike healer of mortal sickness. His mother, daughter of Phlegyas the horseman, ere with the help of Eleithyia, the nurse of childbirth, she could bring her babe to the light of day, was in her chamber stricken by the golden shafts of Artemis, and to the hall of death went down For she in the madness of her heart had spurned the god, and unknown to her father took another lover, even though her maiden bed she had already shared with Apollon of the flowing hair, and bore within her the god's holy seed...But when upon the high wood pure her kinsmen had set the maid, and the flames of Hephaistos shot their bright tongues around her, then cried out Apollon : ‘No longer shall my soul endure that my own son here with his mother in her death most pitiable should perish thus, in sorry grief.’ So spoke he and in one stride was there, and seized the babe from the dead maid; and round him the blazing flames opened a pathway. Then he took the child to the Magnetian Kentauros (Centaur) [i.e. Kheiron (Chiron)], that he teach him to be a healer for mankind of all their maladies and ills.
His mother died in labour and when she was laid out on the pyre, Apollon cut the unborn child from her womb...Asklepios was raised by the centaur Kheiron (Chiron) who instructed him in the art of medicine.
His mother was killed for being unfaithful to Apollo and was laid out on a funeral pyre to be consumed, but the unborn child was rescued from her womb. Or, alternatively, his mother died in labor and was laid out on the pyre to be consumed, but Apollo rescued the child, cutting him from Coronis's womb...Apollo carried the baby to the centaur Chiron who raised Asclepius and instructed him in the art of medicine.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents:
According to the Gospel of Matthew,[1] Herod ordered the execution of all young male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, so as to avoid the loss of his throne to a newborn King of the Jews whose birth had been announced to him by the Magi.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_into_Egypt:
an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him to flee to Egypt with Mary and the infant Jesus since King Herod would seek the child to kill him.
Post Reply