Varro on Iao (=Osiris), c.66 BC

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Varro on Iao (=Osiris), c.66 BC

Post by billd89 »

Among descendants of Egyptianized Judaic Phoenicians ("Chaldaeans"), Osiris = Ἰαὼ (Iao/Yao/Ieod/Ieud/etc.) in the period c.350-150 BC. Hermes Trismegistos was lately established in Egypt (Manetho, 250 BC) when anti-Semite priests might still theoretically demonize 'Jews'/Sethians under (Seth-) Baal/Typhon; in Byblos around the same time or not much later, Osiris became identified w/ Adon (Lucian of Samosata, 135 AD). In Rome c.66 BC, Varro read a corpus writings loosely called 'Chaldaean Mysteries' (older: at least 150-25 BC) which specified "Iao", the Judeo-Egyptian term clearly associated w/ Sethians and Gnostics. Less than three generations later, Jews and adherents of the Egyptian Mystery cult were reportedly and suspiciously expelled together from Rome (19 AD).

From a Pentecostal or 'Protestant Christian' (?) website Link:
The Testimony of Varro in De Mensibus, 75 BC

The 6th C. AD Byzantine Administrator John Lydus, in his history of pagan festivals, De Mensibus, wrote:

"But the Roman Varro, when discussing him, says that among the Chaldaeans (Babylonian Jews), in their mystical [writings], he is called Ἰαὼ, meaning 'mentally-perceived light' in the language of the Phoenicians, as Herennius [Philo] says."

Marcus Terentius Varro is called 'Rome’s greatest scholar.' He lived in Italy from 116-27 BC.

A more detailed and scholarly explanation is found in George H. van Kooten, The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity [2006], p.127:
“Another occurrence of Iao's name is found in (8) the remaining fragments of Varro, the great Roman scholar from the First Century BC. In a fragment which probably formed part of his On Human and Divine Matters of Antiquities, in which he studies the human construc­tion of the divine, Varro says 'that among the Chaldaeans, in their mysteries, he (i.e. the God of the Jews) is called "Iao"' (Varro, edn. B. Cardauns, frg. 17; Stern, No. 75). This passage from Varro, pre­served in the Sixth Century AD Lydus from Constantinople, is directly followed in Lydus by a reference to (9) Philo of Byblos, according to whom — Lydus says — 'Iao, in the Phoenician tongue, refers to the noetic light' (Lydus, De Mensibus 4.53 = FGrH 790, frg. 7; Stern, No. 324). This addition shows that Philo of Byblos indeed appears to have known the Jewish God not only as 'Ieuo' (as we have seen above; Stern, No. 323), but also as 'lao'. The actual fragment from Varro serves to underscore the fact that in the First Century BC the information about the name of the Jewish God found its way into various encyclopaedic works: not only those by Alexander Polyhistor and Diodorus Siculus as discussed above, but also Varro himself.

Both the Pentecostal and scholarly opinions above are in agreement: 'the Supreme God of the Jews' is definitely meant, here. But is that so? Consider the nuance identified and very different conclusion reached by Murdock [2014]:

Also in the first century BCE, Iao was equated with Yahweh by Roman statesman Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BCE), per Christian historian Lydus (c. 490–554 AD/CE) in De Mensibus (4.53). Also associated by Varro with Iao is the “Iu” in Iupiter or Jupiter, the same as Zeus Pater, the Greek 'God the Father,' and Dyaus Pitar of Indian religion. There are many instances in which Zeus is identified with Yahweh, including by the Jewish author of the Letter of Aristeas (Ep. Arist. 16), as well as through the efforts of Antiochus IV, who forced the Jews to accept Zeus in their temple at Jerusalem, as described in the first and second books of the Maccabees.

Regarding the god of the Jews, Lydus relates:
There has been and still is much disagreement among the theologians regarding the god who is worshipped by the Hebrews. For the Egyptians — and Hermes [Trismegistus] first of all — theologize that he is Osiris, “the one who exists,” …the Roman Varro, when discussing him, says that among the Chaldaeans, in their mystical [writings], he is called 'Iaô,' meaning 'mentally-perceived Light' in the language of the Phoenicians, as Herennius [Philo] says.

It is noteworthy that Egyptians prior to Lydus’s time identified Yahweh with Osiris, as we are justified in doing likewise.

From Lydus (this translation), we should read the god 'worshipped by (Egyptian) Jews' as Osiris by a different name - 'Being', according to Hermes Trismegistos. So too the Therapeuts (prior to 20 AD) worshipped τὸ ὄν: 'Being'.

Reiterated, this means some Judeo-Egyptians (whose "ancient cult" Philo Judaeus evasively termed 'Therapeutae') had philosophically abstracted (Hellenized) Osiris for their own Diaspora teachings, by the 2nd-1st BC at the very latest.


To prove the superiority of the Jewish cult, consider Plutarch's inaccessible 'Osiris' summarized by van der Merwe [2014] Link:
Plutarch points out that a deity like the good god Osiris was ‘at the remotest distance from the earth imaginable, being unstained and unpolluted, and clean from every substance that is liable to corruption and death’. For him the souls of mortals ‘have no communion with God, except that they can reach to in conception only, by means of philosophy, as by a kind of an obscure dream’. This seems to be a post-mortem ability of souls to behold the gods (esp. Osiris) (Plutarch, De Isis 78; Aune 1998:1180; Farrell 1992a:3–5).

Recall that Plutarch studied under Ammonius (c.66 AD), who had learned Alexandrian philosophy from yet older Neopythagorean teachers in Philo's day c.25 AD, (Link):
Ammonius taught that God is transcendent, above Time or Motion, but always Being. He is not composite but pure and indestructible. This Being (τὸ ὄν) is also One (τὸ ἕν).77 The identification of God as τὸ ἕν, amongst other things, positions Ammonius within the Neopythagorean tradition.78

On Philo's Jewish interpretation of 'The Being', see esp. De Vita Comtemplativa 2; cf. De Praemiis et Poenis 40, Quaestiones in Exodum 2.68; also τὸ ὄν and the ὁ ὤν (he who is [Exod 3:14]) with the τὸ ὄν of Platonism; e.g., Leg. 1.99; Det. 160 [cf. Exod 3:14]; Post. 21, 175; Deus. 11, 52, 55, 69, 108, 109; Plant. 21, 22; Ebr. 107, 108; Conf. 95; Migr. 169; Her. 95, 229; Mut. 11, 27; Mos. 2.161; Spec. 1.270, 313, 344,345; Virt. 34, 215; Praem. 27, 56; Prob. 43; QG 1.100; QE 2.47.
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')
It is impossible John Lydus (c.560 AD) believed 'Osirian Iao' was current to his own period; he writes of antiquity, historically. What's more, the Lydian's identification of a Supreme 'Being' is entirely consistent with the 'god of the Therapeuts' as defined by Philo Judaeus c.22 AD. Another major point I theorize, following Joan Taylor's presumed location: the Alexandrian Therapeutae occupied an ancient Chaldaean barracks-complex (Herodotus: from 625 until 430 BC or later) beside a MAJOR Osiris cult site (c.270 BC). This means that, in proximity to Taposiris Magna, the Therapeutae operated a competing cult-site. Theirs expressed an Osirian alternative both explicitly Judaized and more personally efficacious. Elsewhere on this forum, I have previously argued this mysterious Judaic sect was demonstrably heterodox and probably subsumed additional Egyptian deities in their syncretistic four-fold daily prayer. From other works of Philo J., these Judaic God-Servants (the first A. A.) practiced an advanced esoteric anagogy, a sober form of henosis far beyond the old Egyptian theosophy.

Philo J. tells how much time they spend theorizing & writing; however, he avoids any discussion/controversy? of their psycho-spiritual treatments (presumably: an esoteric Judaic psychology peddled in others' temple-complexes and abroad; see Moss [2002]). 'Hermes Trismegistos' is given as the connection: the 'Jewish Hermetica' is thereby properly understood as the literary product of a Judaized Neo-Pythagorean Osirian cult of the First Century AD. That sect's theosophical teachings had already masked or discarded the more 'Yahwehistic' (primitive, desert-nomad) elements in a contemporary Hellenistic format, to better proselytize the heterodox Diaspora and attract sophisticated outsiders. And it would soon morph into Classical Gnosticism after 40-70 AD. I suppose they were Jewish (Proto-)Gnostics - probably, Sethians - who scandalously practiced Rebirth: παλιγγενεσία, etc. in Philo's day.

Again in Constantinople c.560 AD, John the Lydian reviewed old documents purportedly from Varro (c.66 BC?), who had consulted even older documents at Rome (dating back to at least c.100-200 BC, within reason) which referred to a Chaldaean term and Egyptian concept of the Jews' God. It cannot be argued (by make-believe) that Porphyry, the-Plagiarist-Librarian, is the source - no, that Late Dating Fallacy is impossible from First or Second Century BC writings (read: OLDER.) Varro's Chaldaean 'Iao' was 'Noetic Light' (amply suggested in both Philo Judaeus & the Hermetica, c.25 AD), if John Lydius has conflated the two Philos. I don't believe Philo of Byblos said 'Ieuo' = 'Noetic Light', unless such a connection was made in some additional material which the Lydian examined. Again, the Lydian was writing historically about 'Chaldaeans' and 'Phoenicians', long-gone peoples and not the Jews of his day nor a century or so earlier.

'Iao' comes from 'Old Jewish' (Egyptian) Chaldaean, not Second Temple Judaism. Likewise, the Pentateuch names of God would be both correct and subsequent, so current to the 3rd C. BC (i.e. after Gmirkin). A persistence in rural Egypt (i.e. the Siriad/Sethrum) is not surprising, hence the relic Sethian-Gnostic expression and borrowed invocation in sympathetic magic and alchemy (1st & 2nd C AD) from Egypt.

For Lydius translated, see De Mensibus, Book 4: 'Chaldaeans' were (some) Egyptian Jews in antiquity.
For indeed, Philo, writing his 'Life' of Moses, says that he [i.e., Moses] was a Chaldaean, but had been born in Egypt, since his ancestors had come down there because of a famine that had struck Babylon and the neighboring regions. And as it seems, the Canaanites were called this [i.e., Chaldaeans] from the beginning, or because Abraham had set out from there. And Philo likewise, with regard to the writings of Moses, says that they were written by him in the Chaldaean language, but later were translated into Greek by Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, who was the third to receive Egypt after Alexander.

Phoenicians became Canaanites, and certain Judaic Semites (I would specify: Northern Israelite Semites) in Egypt were also called 'Chaldaean' until about 200-100 BC. That people had migrated to Egypt in a very distant past (certainly, before 500 BC), likely in settlement waves. (If 'Chaldaeans' are understood to be 'Sethians' then we can see why they were not popularly called 'Samaritans.' Egyptian Melchizedekians - preserving a different tradition - might have been known as 'Samaritans' 300 BC-100 AD.)

Not all were so blessedly esoteric; some others delved deep into passionate carnality. Hence, this portrayal of Chaldaeans or Phoenicians c.1000-500 BC? derived from the OT.
Image
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Varro on Iao (=Osiris), c.66 BC

Post by Secret Alias »

53 There has been and still is much disagreement among the theologians​60 regarding the god who is worshipped by the Hebrews. For the Egyptians — and Hermes [i.e., Trismegistus] first of all — theologize that he is Osiris, "the one who exists," about whom Plato says in the Timaeus: "What is it that always exists, and has no 'coming-to-be'; and what is it that comes to be, but never exists?"​61 But the Greeks say that he is the Dionysus of Orpheus, because, as they themselves say, at the holy place​62 of the temple in Jerusalem, from both pillars vines fashioned from gold used to hold up​63 the curtains that were variegated with purple and scarlet: On the basis of this, they supposed that it was a temple of Dionysus. But Livy asserts in his general Roman history that the god worshipped there is unknown.​64 Following him, Lucan p110 says that the temple in Jerusalem belongs to an "obscure/unseen"​65 god.​66 And Numenius says that he is "incommunicable/unique,"​67 and the father of all the gods, who does not consider it worthy for any to share in his honor. And also the Emperor Julian, when he was going on his expedition against the Persians, wrote to the Jews as follows: "For I am raising the temple of the Most High God with all enthusiasm."​68 For this reason​69 — and also because of circumcision — some of the uneducated even consider him to be Cronus: For they say that Cronus [i.e., Saturn] is the most elevated of the planets. But they do not understand that circumcision is a symbol of the purification of the spiritual soul, as the more initiated​70 Hebrews believe, and that circumcision is not a ritual of Cronus. Those of the Arabs who are called "Scênitae" ["tent-dwellers"] circumcise their own sons at the age of thirteen, as Origen says,​71 although they are honoring Astartê, not Cronus. And also the Ethiopians mark the knee-caps of the young for the sake of Apollo. Porphyry, however, in his commentary on the Oracles, considers the one honored by the Jews to be the "twice transcendent," that is, the creator of the universe, whom the Chaldaean theologizes as the second after the "once transcendent," that is, the Good. Of course, the schools of Iamblichus and Syrianus and Proclus​72 think he is the creator of the perceptible world, calling him the god of the "four-element [world]." But the Roman Varro, p111 when discussing him, says that among the Chaldaeans, in their mystical [writings], he is called "Iaô," meaning "mentally perceived light" in the language of the Phoenicians, as Herennius [Philo] says. And he is frequently called "Sabaôth," meaning the one who is "above the seven heavenly spheres"​73 — that is, the creator. So then, there are many opinions about him; but those who theorize that he is unknown and obscure are predominant. They are mistaken, who consider him to be Dionysus, on the basis of the vines which held up the curtains, as mentioned above — and further, on the basis of a conviction (from whatever source) that the profane​74 among the Hebrews abstain from wine. This mistake can be perceived from their very own laws. For they reveal that it is not the profane, but the consecrated who do this, as follows: "Wine and strong drink you shall not drink . . . when you enter into the tent."

Ὅτι πολλὴ τοῖς θεολόγοις διαφωνὴ περὶ τοῦ παρ' Ἑβραίων τιμωμένου θεοῦ καὶ γέγονε καὶ ἔστιν· Αἰγύπτιοι γὰρ καὶ πρῶτος Ἑρμῆς Ὄσιριν τὸν ὄνταθεολογοῦσιν αὐτόν, περὶ οὗ Πλάτων ἐν Τιμαίῳ λέγει· «τί τὸ ὂν μὲν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον, τί δὲ τὸ γινόμενον, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε;» Ἕλληνες δὲ τὸν Ὀρφέως ∆ιόνυσον, ὅτι, ὡς αὐτοί φασι, πρὸς τῷ ἀδύτῳ τοῦ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ναοῦ ἐξ ἑκατέρων σταθμῶν τὸ πρὶν ἄμπελοι ἀπὸ χρυσοῦ πεποιημένοι ἀνέστελλον τὰ παραπετάσματα ἐκ πορφύρας καὶ κόκκου πεποικιλμένα, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ὑπέλαβον ∆ιονύσου εἶναι τὸ ἱερόν· Λίβιος δὲ ἐν τῇ καθόλου Ῥωμαϊκῇ ἱστορίᾳ ἄγνωστον τὸν ἐκεῖ τιμώμενόν φησι· τούτῳ δὲ ἀκολούθως ὁ Λούκανος ἀδήλου θεοῦ τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ναὸν εἶναι λέγει, ὁ δὲ Νουμήνιος ἀκοινώνητον αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα πάντων τῶν θεῶν εἶναι λέγει, ἀπαξιοῦντα κοινωνεῖν αὐτῷ τῆς τιμῆς τινα· καὶ Ἰουλιανὸς δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς, ὅτε πρὸς Πέρσας ἐστρατεύετο, γράφων Ἰουδαίοις οὕτω φησίν· «ἀνεγείρω γὰρ μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας τὸν ναὸν τοῦ ὑψίστου θεοῦ»· δι' ἣν αἰτίαν καί τινες τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν περιτομὴν Κρόνον αὐτὸν εἶναι νομίζουσιν· ὑψηλότερος γάρ φασι τῶν πλανήτων ὁ Κρόνος· οὐ συνορῶντες ὅτι ἡ περιτομὴ σύμβολόν ἐστι τοῦ καθαρμοῦ τῆς νοερᾶς ψυχῆς, ὡς τοῖς μυστικοῖς τῶν Ἑβραίων δοκεῖ, ὅτι δὲ οὐ Κρονία τελετὴ ἡ περιτομή· καὶ Ἀράβων οἱ λεγόμενοι Σκηνῖται ἐπὶ τοῦ τρισκαιδεκάτου ἐνιαυτοῦ τοὺς ἑαυτῶν παῖδας περιτέμνουσιν ὡς Ὠριγένης λέγει, καίτοι Ἀστάρτην ἀλλ' οὐ Κρόνον τιμῶντες· καὶ Αἰθίοπες δὲ τὰς κόγχας τῶν γονάτων τῶν νέων σιδηρῷ καυστικῷ σφραγίζουσι τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι. ὁ μέντοι Πορφύριος ἐν τῷ ὑπομνήματι τῶν λογίων τὸν δὶς ἐπέκεινα τουτέστι τὸν τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸν τὸν παρὰ Ἰουδαίων τιμώμενον εἶναι ἀξιοῖ, ὃν ὁ Χαλδαῖος δεύτερον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἅπαξ ἐπέκεινα, τουτέστι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, θεολογεῖ. οἱ μέντοι περὶ Ἰάμβλιχον καὶ Συριανὸν καὶ Πρόκλον δημιουργὸν αὐτὸν τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ κόσμου νομίζουσιν εἶναι καλοῦντες αὐτὸν τῆς τετραστοίχου θεόν· ὁ δὲ Ῥωμαῖος Βάρρων περὶ αὐτοῦ διαλαβών φησι παρὰ Χαλδαίοις ἐν τοῖς μυστικοῖς αὐτὸν λέγεσθαι Ἰάω ἀντὶ τοῦ φῶς νοητὸν τῇ Φοινίκων γλώσσῃ, ὥς φησιν Ἑρέννιος. καὶ Σαβαὼθ δὲ πολλαχοῦ λέγεται, οἷον ὁ ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἑπτὰ πόλους, τουτέστιν ὁ δημιουργός. πολλαὶ μὲν οὖν οὕτω περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαι, κρείττους δὲ μᾶλλον οἱ ἄγνωστον αὐτὸν καὶ ἄδηλον θεολογοῦντες. ὅτι δὲ σφάλλονται οἱ ∆ιόνυσον αὐτὸν εἶναι νομίζοντες ἀπό τε τῶν εἰρημένων ἀμπέλων, αἳ τὰ παραπετάσματα ἀνέστελλον καὶ ἔτι οὐκ οἶδ' ὅθεν ἀναπεισθέντες ἀνοινεῖν τοὺς Ἑβραίων βεβήλους, ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄν τις τῶν παρ' αὐτοῖς νομίμων λάβοι· οὐ γὰρ τοὺς βεβήλους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἱερουμένους τουτὶ πράττειν θεσπίζουσιν οὕτω λέγοντες· «οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ πίεσθε ἡνίκα ἂν εἰσπορεύησθε εἰς τὴν σκηνήν.»
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Varro on Iao (c.50 BC?)

Post by billd89 »

Context is almost everything, but there's alot to unpack in all that - and John the Lydian is a topic in its own right. My focus is narrower.

Any late, muddled and unique claim may be reasonably doubted. For me, the Herennius attribution is a later scribal error*: Philo (Judaeus) was obviously meant, overwritten w/ a 'Phoenican' addition to substitute the other Philo. But this means the entire Varro attribution by itself is problematic.

* In the long fragments of Philo Byblos preserved by Eusebius, nowhere is anything like "Noetic Light" discussed. On the contrary, Philo Judaeus discusses the topic repeatedly. The suggestion that Phoenicians worshipped a "God of Noetic Light" equivalent to Yahweh is otherwise unsupported by any other source; it is an absurd claim contradicted by (or wholly apart from, wildly inconsistent with) other Philo B. information. Furthermore, the Syrian and Phoenician gods could not have been so different, whereas esoteric Alexandrian Judaism would logically compare to its Semitic (Chaldaean) predecessor, as an advance. Etc.

Fairly, Pearse/Hooker [2017] identify different scholarly opinions on the debatable or dubious reference to Varro's "Iao + Chaldaeans + mysteries (i.e. books)":
Fr. 17 Cardauns; Stern, 1:211-12 (no.75). Cardauns' commentary (2:146) points out that Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.18.19-21) cites Cornelius Labeo for his information on Iao, and plausibly suggests that this was also John's source for Varro's view; cf. (more cautiously) Mastandrea, Cornelio Labeone, p.164 n.21. See also discussion in Cook, pp.118 n.413; and now Shaw, pp. 60-72 (cf. also pp.322-23), arguing that only the name "Iaô" is securely to be seen as a fragment of Varro's text itself, that the Chaldaeans and "mystical [writings]" are likely additions from a later (Platonic) context of discussion.


I certainly agree the Varro claim is uncertain by itself. However, since my focus is Chaldaeans, I want to see if/how this Varro remark fits squarely with other unrelated, separate materials. And so it does: I see congruence. The admittedly bare (weak?) claim can also be contextualized as legitimate within Varro's work ('On Divine Matters': closer to c.50 BC), rather than spurious; see Peter Van Nuffelen's "Varro’s Divine Antiquities: Roman Religion as an Image of Truth" in Classical Philology, Vol. 105, No. 2 (April 2010), p.180; Link:
Apart from the special position attributed to Samothrace, the idea of mystery cults as loci of truth does not play an important role in the ARD. Varro does not give a prominent place to Eleusis, the only other Greek mystery cult mentioned: Proserpina is simply seen as symbolizing the seminum fecunditatem, and the entire cult is interpreted ad frugum inventionem.107 A very brief reference, however, to the fact that the Chaldaeans, “in their mysteries,” use the name Iao for the Jewish god, who is identical to the highest god, can be taken to show that Varro stressed on at least one additional occasion the link between mysteries and the highest truth.108

108. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 4.9, p.157 lines 5–6 = Varro ARD frag. 15; Augustine, De Consensu Evangeliorum 1.22.30 = Varro ARD frag. 16; Lydus, De Mensibus 4.53 = Varro ARD frag. 17.

The above fully accepts - as I do - that 'Chaldaeans' are in fact (Proto-)Jews. On their mysteries (i.e. books), Varro refers to historical artifacts but perhaps also known traditions/practices of 'Chaldaeans' in his day (c.75-50 BC). Such mantic specialists had certainly emigrated to Rome by then. About 200 years earlier, the OT referred to Semitic astrologers (i.e Chartumim), Kasim and Kashaphim, etc. Furthermore, the 'Chaldaeans of Iao' were perhaps almost exclusively Judeo-Egyptians. From all the archaeological evidence, nothing (that I am aware of) demonstrates that either Syrians or Phoenicians of the northern Levant then used the term 'Iao'. (After 38 AD, Alexandrian Jews fled persecutions/pogroms in the cosmopolis, moving abroad.) Logically, these "Chaldaeans, in their mysteries" (c.50 BC) are/were Egypto-Chaldaeans - regardless IF any other 'Chaldaeans' existed, where the ethnic/community/professions included (few) Semites from other places. For example, Philo of Byblos has a priest of 'Ieud': same-same but different, since Egyptian-Chaldaeans in the Siriad/Sethrum were several generations removed from their Lebanese homeland, c.100 BC. Naturally, by time and dialect, the God-Word had evolved.

Curiously, in this passage Varro is mentioned after but apparently in conjunction with Iamblichus (c.320 AD), Syrianus (c.435 AD) and Proclus (c.480 AD), which opposed 'Iao' to the 'Noetic Light' of Philo (Judaeus, surely: not Philo Byblos). Noetic forms were obviously a topic of great interest to - but wrongly credited as a development of - later Neo-Platonists. If John the Lydian's source had connected those dots, to highlight (correctly) that the Neo-Platonists were not the bold innovators some still imagine, said source was quite recent (c.510 BC). If the Lydian himself made the connection - and he was well aware of both Eusebius and Philo Judaeus - then the 'Herennius' mistake is probably a scribal overwrite after 565 AD (as doubters would have it).

I'm not persuaded that Cornelius Labeo (c.275 AD) via Macrobius' Saturnalia (c.440 AD), or Cornelio Labeone, is the Lydian's source, but someone was. That doesn't settle the "Iao + Chaldaeans + myteries" uncertainty, such as it is. There is clear evidence the Lydian had read both Philos; on Philo J., see Pearse/Hooker [2017], p.xxix:
Note that John has one explicit citation of Philo in a non-arithmological context at De mens 4.47; moreover, the tacit use of Philo at 2.8 seems likely to have been direct, as it includes wording from Philo's exegetical context. Other significant points of contact with Philo's writings appear in 1.17, 2.4, 2.12, 3.10, 4.4 (for which note the discussion in the introduction below), 4.17, 4.51, 4.53, 4.74.


The Varro Fragment:
The simplest explanation is that the uncorrupted text (omitting the later 'Phoenician' confusion, which doesn't fit) read something like this:
ὁ δὲ Ῥωμαῖος Βάρρων περὶ αὐτοῦ διαλαβών φησι παρὰ Χαλδαίοις ἐν τοῖς μυστικοῖς αὐτὸν λέγεσθαι Ἰάω ἀντὶ τοῦ φῶς νοητὸν τῇ Φοινίκων γλώσσῃ, ὥς φησιν Ἑρέννιος.

"the Roman Varro's understanding about Him {i.e. the Jews' God} tells of the Chaldaeans (in their mysteries [i.e. books]), that they called Him Ἰάω {Iaô} instead of 'the Light' {in the language of the Phoenicians}, as Philo says."

Philo Byblos did not express this idea; Philo Judaeus (and his predecessors in Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism) had converted God into 'The Light'. Likewise, Clement of Alexanderia followed this 'Philonic' Light in Protrepticus 10.98.4, etc. The basic idea is summarized by Goodenough [1935] p.7: "God was no longer the God of the Old Testament: He was the Absolute connected with phenomena by His Light-Stream, the Logos or Sophia. The hope and aim of man was ... to rise to Incorruption, Immortality, Life by climbing the mystic ladder, traversing the Royal Road, of the Light-Stream." In Philo Judaeus (among many examples), see De Somniis, 1.85, 1.87, esp. De Opificio Mundi § 8; M. 1.6,7, P.6 (Ri. 1.11).

G.R.S. Mead's trans.:
“[This Light] is the [One] Star, beyond [all] heavens, the Source of the Stars that are visible to the senses, which it would not be beside the mark to call All-Brilliancy, and from which the sun and moon and the rest of the stars, both errant and fixed, draw their light, each according to its power.”

Yonge's trans:
(31) And the invisible Divine Reason, perceptible only by intellect, he calls the Image of God. And the image of this Image is that Light, perceptible only by Intellect, which is the image of Divine Reason, which has explained its generation. And It is a star above the heavens, the Source of those stars which are perceptible by the external senses, and if any one were to call it Universal Light he would not be very wrong; since it is from that the sun and the moon, and all the other planets and fixed stars derive their due light, in proportion as each has power given to it; that unmingled and pure Light being obscured when it begins to change, according to the change from that which is perceptible only by Intellect, to that which is perceptible by the external senses; for none of those things which are perceptible to the external senses is pure.

Colson trans:
Now that invisible Light perceptible only by Mind has come into being as an Image of the Divine Word Who brought it within our ken: It is a supercelestial constellation, fount of the constellations obvious to sense. It would not be amiss to term It “All-Brightness,” to signify that from which sun and moon, as well as fixed stars and planets draw, in proportion to their several capacity, the light befitting each of them: for that pure and undiluted Radiance is bedimmed so soon as It begins to undergo the change that is entailed by the passage from the Intelligible to the sensibly discerned, for no object of sense is free from dimness.

Philo J.'s thesis is so esoterical and astrological, how could a scholar reasonably deny the subject is fundamentally mystical and Chaldaean? The point is that such theoretical material cannot be confused w/ folk superstition, in Key Concepts such as:
φῶς θείου λόγου ..................... οὐράνιος ἀστήρ ........ παναύγειαν ....... πηγὴ δύναμις ...
The Light of the Divine Logos is .... a Heavenly Star ........ 'All-Brightness' ....Source of the Power ...

Recall that Philo Judaeus' Therapeut, a sober Alethian Anthropos, sought conscious contact w/ the godhead, praying only for a vision of the Good - i.e. The Great Reality is a perception of Noetic Light - with the Eyes of the Heart. So in 1938, the Edelsteins re-constructed this Chaldaean/Sethian paradigm for the modern proselyte, w/ 'God' defined as the Cosmic Dynamis/ Higher Power. (Therefore, too: Ἰάω/Iaô is Jupiter - Gnostic/Sethian Iao & His Angel Suriel.)
These men were like lamps supplied with current from a huge spiritual dynamo and controlled by the rheostat of their souls. They burned dim, bright, or brilliant, depending upon the degree and progress of their contact. And this contact could only be maintained just so long as they obeyed that spiritual law.

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Varro on Iao (=Osiris), c.66 BC

Post by Secret Alias »

I find more interesting the apparent presence of the emphatic suffix i.e. יהוה was originally יהו + ‎ה. was originally יהו + ‎ה. This explains this phenomenon https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95 It would seem that ancients knew that יהוה was originally יהו + ‎ה.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Varro on Iao (=Osiris), c.66 BC

Post by Secret Alias »

The most complete copies of the Septuagint (B, א, A), versions from fourth century onwards consistently use Κύριος (“Lord”), or Θεός (“God”), where the Hebrew has YHWH, corresponding to substituting Adonai for YHWH in reading the original, but the oldest fragments have the tetragrammaton in Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew characters, with the exception of P. Ryl. 458 (perhaps the oldest extant Septuagint manuscript) where there are blank spaces, leading some scholars such as Colin Henderson Roberts to believe that it contained letters, and 4Q120that has ΙΑΩ. According to Paul E. Kahle, in P. Ryl. 458 the tetragrammaton must have been written where these breaks or blank spaces appear.Albert Pietersma claims that P. Ryl. 458 is irrelevant in this discussion: Kahle insisted that a lacuna in it too large for the usual abbreviation κς, which C.H. Roberts suggested was intended for the complete word κύριος, was instead meant for the Hebrew tetragrammaton; Pietersma holds that “the full κύριος would seem to be perfectly acceptable from every perspective”.
The oldest known LXX manuscript that has the Hebrew tetragrammaton is of the first century BCE, with the letters written in square script. A slightly later one (between 50 BCE and 50 CE) has the tetragrammon in archaic Paleo-Hebrew letters.

Of the same period as the oldest LXX manuscript with the Hebrew tetragrammaton is the manuscript 4Q120 with the Greek trigrammaton ΙΑΩ. P.W. Skehan and Martin Hengel propose that the Septuagint originally had ΙΑΩ (pronounced Yaho = Aramaic יהו) and that this was altered to Aramaic/Hebrew characters and later to Paleo-Hebrew and finally was replaced by Κύριος.

Before the third century CE no Greek manuscript has Κύριος in place of the tetragram or ΙΑΩ. “An original tetragram, either in Semitic guise or in Greek transliteration”, “had been maintained as far back as Origen”, who wrote that the best copies used the paleo-Hebrew letters, not the square:

In the more accurate exemplars [of the LXX] the (divine) name is written in Hebrew characters; not, however, in the current script, but in the most ancient.

Other old fragments cannot be used in this discussion because, in addition to their brevity and fragmentary condition, they include no Hebrew Bible verse containing the Tetragrammaton (i.e. 4Q119, 4Q121, 4Q122, 7Q5). 4Q126, which contains the word κύριος cannot be cited as using it for the tetragrammaton, since its unidentified text is not necessarily biblical. In Septuagint manuscripts dating from about the third century CE onwards (e.g., P.Oxy656, P.Oxy1075 and P.Oxy1166) the Greek word Κύριος (Lord) is used rather frequently to represent the divine name יהוה (YHWH) and can be what was used when reading out representations in non-Greek characters.

In 2014, Pavlos Vasileiadis, Doctor of Theology (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), a researcher into the representation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in the Greek of various periods down to its modern form, summed up as follows the various views on the original treatment of the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint and concluded that hard evidence supports the view that the Septuagint originally translated the Hebrew tetragrammaton by some form of Ιαω, not by Κύριος nor by transcribing the tetragrammaton itself:

The original Greek translation of the divine name has proved to be a heavily debated subject. A constantly great amount of scholarly effort has been put in this question, especially as a result of more recent discoveries that challenged previously long-held assumptions. More specifically, W. G. von Baudissin (1929) maintained that right from its origins the LXX had rendered the Tetragrammaton by κύριος, and that in no case was this latter a mere substitute for an earlier αδωναι. Based on more recent evidence that had became available, P. Kahle (1960) supported that the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in the OG and it was the Christians who later replaced it with κύριος. S. Jellicoe (1968) concurred with Kahle. H. Stegemann (1969/1978) argued that Ιαω /i.a.o/ was used in the original LXX. G. Howard (1977/1992) suggested that κύριος was not used in the pre-Christian OG. P. W. Skehan (1980) proposed that there had been a textual development concerning the divine name in this order: Ιαω, the Tetragrammaton in square Hebrew characters, the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters and, finally, κύριος. M. Hengel (1989) offered a similar scheme for the use of κύριος for the divine name in the LXX tradition. Evolving R. Hanhart’s position (1978/1986/1999), A. Pietersma (1984) regarded κύριος as the original Greek rendering of the Tetragrammaton in the OG text. This view was supported later by J. W. Wevers (2005) and M. Rösel (2007). Moreover, Rösel argued against the Ιαω being the original LXX rendering of the Tetragrammaton. E. Tov (1998/2004/2008), J. Joosten (2011), and A. Meyer (2014) concluded that Pietersma’s arguments are unconvincing. More particularly, Tov has supported that the original translators used a pronounceable form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (like Ιαω), which was later replaced by κύριος, while Greek recensions replaced it with transliterations in paleo-Hebrew or square Hebrew characters. R. Furuli (2011), after comparing the various proposals, argued that κύριος did not replace the Tetragrammaton before the Common Era and the LXX autographs included the Tetragrammaton in some form of Ιαω. Truly, the hard evidence available supports this latter thesis.

Throughout the Septuagint, as now known, the word Κύριος (Kyrios) without the definite article is used to represent the divine name, but it is uncertain whether this was the Septuagint’s original rendering. Origen (Commentary on Psalms2.2) and Jerome (Prologus Galeatus) said that in their time the best manuscripts gave not the word Κύριος but the tetragrammaton itself written in an older form of the Hebrew characters. No Jewish manuscript of the Septuagint has been found with Κύριος representing the tetragrammaton, and it has been argued, but not widely accepted, that the use of Κύριος shows that later copies of the Septuagint were of Christian character, and even that the composition of the New Testament preceded the change to Κύριος in the Septuagint. Its consistent use of Κύριος to represent the tetragrammaton has been called “a distinguishing mark for any Christian LXX manuscript”, However, a passage in the Hebrew Tosefta, Shabbat 13:5 (written c. 300 CE), quoting Tarfon (who lived between 70 and 135 CE), says that it was permitted on the Sabbath to burn Christian works − gilyonim (gospels?) and other writings − even if they contained the names of God written in them (without specifying the form or forms in which the names of God were written − as the Aramaic or Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton, as ΙΑΩ or otherwise).

In the same year as the summary by Vasileiadis of older interpretations (2014), Frank Shaw published his The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω, in which he argues that the divine name was still articulated until the second or third century and that the use of Ιαω was by no means limited to magical or mystical formulas, but was still normal in more elevated contexts such as that exemplified by Papyrus 4Q120. Shaw describes as “inconsistent and contradictory” the arguments by Pietersma, Rösel and Perkins for the originality of κύριος and considers all theories that posit in the Septuagint a single original form of the divine name as merely based on a priori assumptions. Accordingly, he declares: “The matter of any (especially single) ‘original’ form of the divine name in the LXX is too complex, the evidence is too scattered and indefinite, and the various approaches offered for the issue are too simplistic” to account for the actual scribal practices (p. 158). He holds that the earliest stages of the LXX’s translation were marked by diversity (p. 262), with the choice of certain divine names depending on the context in which they appear (cf. Gen 4:26; Exod 3:15; 8:22; 28:32; 32:5; and 33:19). He treats of the related blank spaces in Septuagint manuscripts and the setting of spaces around the divine name in 4Q120 and another manuscript (p. 265), and repeats that “there was no one ‘original’ form but different translators had different feelings, theological beliefs, motivations, and practices when it came to their handling of the name” (p. 271).

His view on these points has won the support of Didier Fontaine, Anthony R. Meyer, Bob Becking, and earlier (commenting on Shaw’s 2011 dissertation on the subject) D.T. Runia.

In the list of 120 or so manuscripts and fragments of Old Greek translations (LXX, Aquila etc.) down to and including the complete texts, Robert A. Kraft indicates that one has spaces in place of the Tetragrammaton (P. Ryl. 458) and one has ΙΑΩ (4Q120) in the period before the turn of the era. Extant manuscripts containing κύριος, including the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices, are from the third century CE onwards.

The tetragrammaton or something associated with it (ΙΑΩ or a space) occurs in the following texts of the Septuagint:

2nd-century BCE

Papyrus Rylands 458 – contains fragments of Deuteronomy. Has blank spaces where the copyist probably had to write either the tetragrammaton or the word κύριος. It has been dated to 2nd century BCE.
1st-century BCE

4QpapLXXLevb – contains fragments of the Book of Leviticus, chapters 1 to 5. In two verses: 3:12; 4:27 the tetragrammaton of the Hebrew Bible is represented by the Greek trigrammaton ΙΑΩ. This manuscript is dated to the 1st century BCE.
Papyrus Fouad 266b (848) – contains fragments of Deuteronomy, chapters 10 to 33, dated to 1st century BCE. The tetragrammaton appears in square Hebrew/Aramaic script. According to a disputed view, the first copyist left a blank space marked with a dot, and another inscribed the letters.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3522 – contains parts of two verses of chapter 42 of the Book of Job and has the tetragrammaton written in paleo-Hebrew letters. It has been dated to the 1st century BCE.
1st-century CE

8HevXII gr – dated to the 1st century CE, includes three fragments published separately.
Se2grXII (LXXIEJ 12) has the tetragrammaton in 1 place
8HevXII a (LXXVTS 10a) in 24 places, whole or in part.
8HevXII b (LXXVTS 10b) in 4 places.
2nd-century CE

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5101 – contains fragments of the Book of Psalms. It has been dated between year 50 and 150 CE
3rd-century CE

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1007 – this manuscript in vitela form contains Genesis 2 and 3. The divine name is written with a double yodh. It has been assigned paleographically to the 3rd century.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 656 – containing fragments of the Book of Genesis, chapters 14 to 27. The first copyist left blank spaces in which a second wrote Kyrios. It is dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE.
Papyrus Berlin 17213 – containing fragments of the Book of Genesis, chapter 19. Contains one blank space that may have been for the name of God, but Emanuel Tov thinks that it was to mark the end of a paragraph. It has been dated to 3rd century CE.
6th-century CE

Taylor-Schechter 16.320 – tetragrammaton in Hebrew, 550 – 649 CE.
Codex Marchalianus – uses ΙΑΩ as the divine name, but in the margin represents the tetragrammaton by the Greek letters ΠΙΠΙ. It is a 6th-century Greek manuscript.
Other translations
In copies of the Bible translated into Greek in the 2nd century CE by Symmachus and Aquila of Sinope, the tetragrammaton occurs. The following manuscripts contain the tetragrammaton:

3rd-century CE

Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 39777, the P.Vindob.G.39777 – dated to late 3rd century or beginning 4th century.
5th-century CE

AqTaylor, this manuscript of the Aquila version is dated after the middle of the 5th century, but not later than the beginning of the 6th century.
AqBurkitt – a palimpsest manuscript of the Aquila version dated late 5th century or early 6th century.
Hexaplaric manuscripts
In the Hexapla, the tetragrammaton is included in works by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, but additionally in three other anonymous Greek translations (Quinta, Sextus and Septima).

7th-century CE

Taylor-Schechter 12.182 – a Hexapla manuscript with tetragrammaton in Greek letters ΠΙΠΙ. It is from 7th-century.
9th-century CE

Ambrosiano O 39 sup. – the latest Greek manuscript containing the name of God is Origen’sHexapla, transmitting among other translations the text of the Septuagint. This codex comes from the late 9th century, and is stored in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana.
Sidney Jellicoe concluded that “Kahle is right in holding that LXX [Septuagint] texts, written by Jews for Jews, retained the divine name in Hebrew Letters (paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek-letters imitative form ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κύριος was a Christian innovation”. Jellicoe draws together evidence from a great many scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C. H. Roberts) and various segments of the Septuagint to draw the conclusions that the absence of “Adonai” from the text suggests that the insertion of the term Kyrios was a later practice; in the Septuagint Kyrios is used to substitute YHWH; and the tetragrammaton appeared in the original text, but Christian copyists removed it.

Eusebius and Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) used the Hexapla. Both attest to the importance of the sacred Name and that some manuscripts of Septuagint contained the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters. This is further affirmed by The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, which states “Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translators of the LXX (Septuagint) have rendered the tetragrammaton JHWH with KYRIOS. The most ancient available manuscripts of the LXX have the tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was a custom preserved by the later Hebrew translator of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)”

David Trobisch has noted that, while Christian manuscripts of the Jewish Bible use Kύριος or the nomina sacra Θς and κς (with a horizontal line above the contracted words) to represent the Tetragrammaton, manuscripts of Greek translations of the Old Testament written by Jewish scribes, such as those found in Qumran, reproduce it within the Greek text in several different ways. Some give it in either Hebrew, Aramaic or paleo-Hebrew letters. Others transliterate it in Greek characters as ΠΙΠΙ or ΙΑΩ. The fragment Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1007 is in fact difficult to identify as either Christian or Jewish, as on the barely legible recto side (in Gen 2:18) it contains the nomen sacrum ΘΣ (characteristic of Christian manuscripts) and the Tetragrammaton represented as a double yodh יי (characteristic of Jewish manuscripts).

According to Edmon Gallagher, a faculty member of Heritage Christian University, “extant Greek manuscripts from Qumran and elsewhere that are unambiguously Jewish (because of the date) also include several ways of representing the Divine Name, none of which was with κύριος, the term used everywhere in our Christian manuscripts”. He concludes that there is no certainty about whether it was a Jew or a Christian who transcribed the Cairo Genizah manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Aquila (not the LXX), in which the Tetragrammaton is generally given in paleo-Hebrew letters but in one instance, where there was insufficient space at the end of a line, by κυ, the nomen sacrumrendering of the genitive case of Κύριος. E. Gallagher also “has argued convincingly that Christian scribes might have produced paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammata within their biblical manuscripts, in addition to the attested use of the forms יהוה and πιπι.”


Petrus Alphonsi’s early 12th-century Tetragrammaton-Trinity diagram, rendering the name as “IEVE”

Apocrypha
In books written in Greek (e.g., Wisdom, 2 and 3 Maccabees), Κύριος takes the place of the name of God.

Patristic writings
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B.D. Eerdmans:
Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) writes Ἰαῶ (Iao);
Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Gnostics formed a compound Ἰαωθ (Iaoth) with the last syllable of Sabaoth. He also reports that the Valentinian heretics use Ἰαῶ (Iao);
Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) writes Ἰαοὺ (Iaou)—see also below;
Origen (d. c. 254), Ἰαώ (Iao);
Porphyry (d. c. 305) according to Eusebius (died 339), Ἰευώ (Ieuo);
Epiphanius (died 404), who was born in Palestine and spent a considerable part of his life there, gives Ἰά (Ia) and Ἰάβε (pronounced at that time /ja’vε/) and explains Ἰάβε as meaning He who was and is and always exists.
(Pseudo-)Jerome (4th/5th century), (tetragrammaton) can be read Iaho;
Theodoret (d. c. 457) writes Ἰαώ (Iao); he also reports that the Samaritans say Ἰαβέ or Ἰαβαί (both pronounced at that time /ja’vε/), while the Jews say Ἀϊά (Aia). (The latter is probably not יהוה‎ but אהיה‎ Ehyeh = “I am ” or “I will be”, Exod. 3:14 which the Jews counted among the names of God.)
Jacob of Edessa (died 708), Jehjeh;
Jerome (died 420) speaks of certain Greek writers who misunderstood the Hebrew letters יהוה‎ (read right-to-left) as the Greek letters ΠΙΠΙ (read left-to-right), thus changing YHWH to pipi.
Peshitta
The Peshitta (Syriac translation), probably in the second century, uses the word “Lord” (ܡܳܪܝܳܐ, pronounced moryo) for the Tetragrammaton.

Vulgate
Main article: Vulgate

The Vulgate (Latin translation) made from the Hebrew in the 4th century CE, uses the word Dominus (“Lord”), a translation of the Hebrew word Adonai, for the tetragrammaton.

The Vulgate translation, though made not from the Septuagint but from the Hebrew text, did not depart from the practice used in the Septuagint. Thus, for most of its history, Christianity’s translations of the Scriptures have used equivalents of Adonai to represent the tetragrammaton. Only at about the beginning of the 16th century did Christian translations of the Bible appear with transliterations of the tetragrammaton.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Varro on Iao (=Osiris), c.66 BC

Post by Secret Alias »

I asked Tal about the final heh as a emphatic marker.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Varro on 'Iao' c.50 BC, and Philo on 'Light' c.25 AD

Post by billd89 »

De Mensibus 4.53:
ὁ δὲ Ῥωμαῖος Βάρρων περὶ αὐτοῦ διαλαβών φησι παρὰ Χαλδαίοις ἐν τοῖς μυστικοῖς αὐτὸν λέγεσθαι Ἰάω ἀντὶ τοῦ φῶς νοητὸν τῇ Φοινίκων γλώσσῃ, ὥς φησιν Ἑρέννιος.

"The Roman Varro's understanding about Him {i.e. the Jews' God} tells that Chaldaeans (in their mysteries) called Him Ἰάω {Iaô} - instead of 'the Light' {in the Phoenicians' language}, as Philo says."

Against the 'Phoenician Inclusion' - which really makes no sense at all, 'apples-and-oranges' etc.: Perhaps I've missed smthg, but etymologically-speaking, nothing suggests "Iao" meant "Light" in "Phoenician". What's more: there simply wasn't any 'Phoenician Light' God in Philo Byblos ... or anywhere else in Phoenician religion from 150 BC - 150 AD apparently. With the standard caveat 'that we know of', and while it might be tempting to read in the Hebrew 'Sun of Righteousness' (שֶׁ֣מֶשׁ צְדָקָ֔ה or shemesh tsedâqâh) for the Messiah or the Christian 'Radiance of God's Glory', that's definitely misplaced here. Occam's Razor suggests this muddle is wrong to impossibility and Dismissed.

John Lydus (c.560 AD) copied from an unknown source. The Claim is not controversial and probably correct: Varro (c.50 BC?) believed "Chaldaeans" - perhaps of his day (i.e. in their current practice) or more likely from recorded traditions (books: accounts of their "mysteries") - called the Hebrew God "Iaô." The counter-point made by another unknown author (possibly the Lydian himself) is "... but ..." Philo's claim the Chaldaeans' (Hebrew) God was "Light." As such, we have 2 'primary sources' in 2 time-periods, and at least 3 degrees of hearsay. Varro could not have known Philo Judaeus (at Alexandria, 75 years later: c.25 AD) nor Herennius Philon (at Byblos Lebanon, c.120 AD), etc. So a presumably 5th C AD unknown author logically compared two separate reported God-concepts of "Chaldaeans" (not Chaldaeans and Phoenicians) and interpolated 'Herennius Philo' over Philo Judaeus. There's the muddle, in a nut-shell.

Since 'Chaldaean' was category of multiple meanings (an ethnic, a class of mantic specialists, etc.) in antiquity, it is entirely reasonable to ask if the word "Iaô" specifically identifies them as Judeo-Egyptians. (I suppose it does.) Varro's report is not unique: Diodorus Siculus (who authored at least two books on Egypt) used the term in Bibliotheca Historica, Book I.94 : παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Μωυσῆν τὸν Ἰαὼ ἐπικαλούμενον θεόν. Because many ancient historians report Moses was 'of Chaldaean descent', this pointed c.50 BC reference supports Varro's Chaldaean Iaô. More importantly, this re-directs our attention to Egyptian Jews (again.)

The comparison of two 'Chaldaean' expressions of this god is all that makes sense, here. (A Phoenician, Assyrian or Egyptian god would not.) Therefore Alexandrian theosopher Philo Judaeus is entirely relevant and on point, precisely because he has presented an alternate - yet again 'Chaldaean' (i.e. astrological, mystical) - expression of the Creator-God: the Logos as Light:

De Opificio Mundi 31a;
τὸ δὲ ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο θείου λόγου γέγονεν εἰκὼν τοῦ διερμηνεύσαντος τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἔστιν ὕπερ· οὐράνιος ἀστήρ, πηγὴ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀστέρων, ἣν οὐκ ἄν ἀπὸ σκοποῦ καλέσειεν ἄν τις παναύγειαν, ἀφ’ ἧς ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πλάνητές τε καὶ ἀπλανεῖς ἀρύτονται, καθ’ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ δύναμις, τὰ πρέποντα φέγγη, τῆς ἀμιγοῦς καὶ καθαρᾶς αὐγῆς ἐκείνης ἀμαυρουμένης, ὅταν ἄρξηται τρέπεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἐκ νοητοῦ πρὸς αἰσθητὸν μεταβολήν·

My own trans. effort:

Now the Invisible and Noetic Light of that Divine Logos was made an Ikon of He who communicates/interprets its Genesis. It is a Super-celestial Star, Source of sense-perceptible constellations, which is called (and not for no reason) the “All-Brightness,” that from which Sun and Moon, and the fixed stars and roving planets draw their proportionate Power and appropriate Light. The Undilute and Pure Gleam has its brightness diminished as It starts to undergo a transformation from the Noetic to the Aesthetic.

This model states the 'Form of God' (Ikon) is reality of a radiant phenomenality, explaining God's sustenance of the Intelligible Cosmos. The Noetic Light is God. But there's alot more to unpack - I'm not sure this is quite consistent, and there's some back-story. First was 'Theos' (Divine Mind) then His 'Logos' (Word) which then iterates/ideates a Super-Star. Its Invisible Light (of God), the Noetic Light of Divine Mind (i.e. 'the Light of The Word') powers Reality. This Ikon, an Imago Dei, is an Archetypal Energy which generates everything (incl. the Sun, obviously, upon which all terrestrial life depends). The “All-Brightness” (παναύγεια) is an esoteric Fount of Primordial Light (or Cosmic Dynamo). Beyond these mixed metaphors, there's also an unexplained metaphysical 'transformation.' But what other sources describe/clarify this particular Star-Ikon or Light-Fountain - and where does the idea come from, exactly?*

Image
'Noetic Light' = 'The Good.'

I don't believe Philo J's designed this complex chiffre, so logically he is re-presenting some school, a theory of the 1st C. BC or older. There are many reasons he would not write "... the Chaldaeans say ...", but his early readers didn't need that qualification either. The essential character is self-evident, even if we suspect that underlying ideas came from other cultures. If this is 'Alexandrian Jewish' (and I suppose it is), travelling Sethian-Therapeut teachers were the most obvious mediators. Around c.150-25 BC, Egyptian Chaldaeans morphed into the later Sethians, Alchemists, Hermeticists, etc.

Elsewhere, I recently examined a curious passage which might echo this controversy. Amos 5:26 condemns some Israelites for worshipping Moloch/Saturn instead of Yahweh/Jupiter during the forty years in the wilderness: “But you have brought along the Sukkōt (tent) of your king (Moloch, Melekh) and the pillar (the erected Kion) of your images, the Star of your god, which you made for yourselves."

These Pillar-People - call them 'Sethians'? - have a Star-God competing w/ the Jewish god who Varro associated w/ Jupiter: see St. Augustine. I haven't cross-checked Bunsen's proof, nor can I confirm his Seth-Typhon/Osiris-Isis identification w/ Saturn, but there's one theoretical point of conflict w/ Jupiter-oriented Jews. And Chaldaeans/Sethians are set apart from Jews in more than one source. Double-check all 'Bad Jews' for any telling traces of sectarianism.

To the average Roman or Jew c.50 BC, wouldn't this astro-theology evoke Chaldaean science? How could this be Yahweh's Judaism? No: Noetic Light is mystically 'Chaldaean' and recognizable as such, coming from a 1st C AD Jewish philosopher. So the Lydian's observation or repetition fits any time after c.450 AD (when Philo's work was better known, and Varro's books still circulated widely): "Varro's understanding about Him tells about Chaldaeans (in their mysteries), that they called Him 'Iaô', instead of 'the Light' (as Philo says)." The gist is that Chaldaean Jews (i.e. Jewish philosophers) formerly had 'Iao' but evolved a new meaning for their God over a century or so (say, 3-5 generations later) - that shift seemed note-worthy to some later theologian.

The Philonic conception of 'God-as-Light' is further stated in De Cherubim 96-97: "His Light manages Itself (φωτὶ χρώμενον ἑαυτῷ). For the Eye of Being needs no other light to perceive whatever, but He - whose Archetype casts forth a myriad of rays, none of which are aesthetic (i.e. sensible) but all noetic - is understood to be Unseen." Though the focus here is illumination-perception, the Archetype is obviously the Invisible Sun, if vaguely defined and w/o reference to other celestial lights. Curiously, a generation later the Alexandrian Author of Epistle to the Hebrews (c.55 AD?) avoided discussing the φῶς for some sectarian reason (Langenkamp, PhD Diss. 2017, p.29): Gnostic troubles, perhaps?

For all this I presume simply: a) Varro accurately noted older Chaldaean mysteries/folklore c.300-150 BC, and b) Philo Judaeus wrote about contemporary Judeo-Egyptian/Chaldaean esoterica, c.50 BC. What's really interesting is the Chaldaeans' definition of God in the centuries BEFORE Philo Judaeus. For that, we need to know more about the (Proto-Jewish) Chaldaeans of Ptolemaic Egypt.

* I emphatically agree with Uždavinys [2008], pp.105-7: it is completely wrong to misconstrue Syrian Neo-Platonists as the origin. As for the Greeks, I am aware of Plato's Book VI of The Republic (508Aff); the Hypercosmic Sun is summarized here. From the OT, Isaiah 60:19-20 is suggestive and perhaps dates to c.60 BC: γὰρ κύριός σοι φῶς αἰώνιον. The Leor Olam (Everlasting Light) – עולם לאור – is not termed a 'Star,' although It may have been.
Post Reply