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.
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.
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.
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.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')
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.