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...
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.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.
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.
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....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.
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.Philo is probably using the two powers in heaven concept, which is an area of great debate. Adam Kadmon and the second Adam.
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.
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!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.
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.
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.)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.
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?)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.
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.
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: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.
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.
Platonizing, in a Jewish way. Yes, I agree w/ this.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.
** 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
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.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.
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.
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.