Damien F. Mackey
“Clement of Alexandria even believed that Sirach had influenced the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (Strom. 2.5; Bright 1999:1064)”.
Chris de Wet
Introduction
Some of the greatest presumed founders of religions and philosophies we
have found to be composite, non-historical persons based upon real (often
biblical) personages.
Thus, for instance, the seminal Thales,
was
based upon the Egyptianised Joseph, son of Jacob, of the Book of Genesis
Re-Orienting to
Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy
And, likewise, Pythagoras:
Hebrew Foundations
of Pythagoras
In the case of the Buddha,
we found that he was primarily based upon Moses:
Buddha based on Moses and Jesus
Heraclitus - who, or whatever he may have been - was said to
have come under the influence of the biblical (in Catholic bibles) Sirach.
Chris de Wet tells of it in his article, “John Chrysostom’s
use of the Book of Sirach in his homilies on the New Testament”: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ABbef
The golden age of Greek
patristic literature, that is, the fourth and fifth centuries, are no exception
as far as the popularity of Sirach. Besides John Chrysostom, nearly all of the
most prominent authors of this period cite from Sirach, including, inter alia,
Clement of Alexandria … Ambrose … and Augustine…. Clement of Alexandria even
believed that Sirach had influenced the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (Strom.
2.5; Bright 1999:1064). Sirach was also popular with authors such as
Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian. Jerome, however, rejected the canonical status
of Sirach. The first full commentary on Sirach was only completed in the ninth
century by Rabanus Maurus (Bright 1999:1064).
Even the great Socrates, who
has similarities to the Hebrew prophets, was likely a composite, non-historical
character. Thus I have written:
'Socrates' as a Prophet | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
www.academia.edu/25249243/Socrates_as_a_Prophet
'Socrates' as a
Prophet by Damien F. Mackey I put 'Socrates' in inverted commas here because I suspect that he, as is the
case with the Prophet 'Mohammed', had no real historical existence, but is
basically a biblical composite. Introduction For the substance of this article
to be fully appreciated, one needs to be aware of ...
'Socrates' as a Prophet. Part Two: Presumed Era | Damien Mackey ...
www.academia.edu/25249791/_Socrates_as_a_Prophet._Part_Two_Presumed_Era
'Socrates' as a
Prophet Part Two: Presumed Era by Damien F. Mackey The
era in which 'Socrates' is thought to have emerged
pertains to c. 600-300 BC, known as “The Axial Age”. It is thought to have been
a time of some very original characters and religio-philosophical founding
fathers: Socrates, Confucius, Buddha and ...
'Socrates' as a Prophet. Part Three: A Composite Figure | Damien ...
www.academia.edu/.../_Socrates_as_a_Prophet._Part_Three_A_Composite_Figure
'Socrates' as a
Prophet Part Three: A Composite Figure by Damien F. Mackey Was
'Socrates' a prophet? The question may not
be as silly as it might at first appear. The Evolution of 'Socrates' Though the prototypal Socrates, and indeed Mohammed, are (according to my view) composites,
based chiefly upon persons ...
And, assigned to AD time, the highly influential Prophet Mohammed turns out to be quite an historical
anomaly:
Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with
the life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even
so far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence. Biblico-historical
events,... more
Nineveh, which was destroyed by the Medes in c. 612 BC, and not
re-discovered until the C19th AD – “Before that, Nineveh, unlike the clearly
visible remains of other well-known sites such as Palmyra, Persepolis, and
Thebes, was invisible,... more
The name Montuemhat itself may have great significance following on
from my argument, albeit most controversial, that Tobias/Job was the 'matrix'
for the Prophet Mohammad.
The ‘life’ of Mohammed will be shown to consist of, to a large extent,
a string of biblical episodes (relating to, for instance, Moses; David;
Job/Tobias; Jeremiah; Jesus Christ), but altered and/or greatly embellished,
and re-cast into... more
Might not the same sort of situation apply again for Zoroaster?
Indeed, according to certain traditions, Zoroaster was the biblical
Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baruch-baruk-baruk-in-ar
Baruch is of interest to Iranian studies chiefly because he
was identified with Zoroaster by the Syriac authors Išoʿdād of Marv (3rd/9th cent.) and Solomon of Baṣra (7th/13th cent.), an
identification perpetuated by some of the Arab historians (see the material
collected by Richard Gottheil, “References to Zoroaster in Syriac and Arabic
literature,” in Classical Studies in Honour
of Henry Drisler,New York, 1894, pp. 24-32, as well as Joseph Bidez
and Franz Cumont, Les Mages hellénisés.
Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition grecque,Paris,
1938, repr. Paris, 1973, I, pp. 49ff., and the texts referred to and published
in the second volume).
Thales; Pythagoras; buddha; heraclitus; Socrates;
Zoroaster; prophet Mohammed.
These
famous sages and philosophical luminaries, and founding fathers of some of the
greatest world religions even of our present day may not be all that they seem.
Academic bias
towards Greeks
“Philosophy is essentially a western phenomenon because of the
individualistic nature of the great philosophers”.
Alistair Sinclair
The following
excerpts taken from Alistair Sinclair’s book What is Philosophy? An
Introduction (Dunedin Academic Press Ltd., 2008) are perfect examples of
the type of indoctrination according to which we westerners have thus been
‘educated’, that wrongfully gives all the credit to the Greeks – an entirely
Western-biased view of the origins of philosophy:
P. 15 Philosophy as a
western phenomenon
The great philosophers were
all western philosophers because philosophy developed as a distinct subject in
ancient Greek culture. The word ‘philosophy’ was popularized by Pythagoras but
it was Plato who delineated the role of the philosopher and distinguished it
from the role of the sophist.
…. Philosophy is essentially a
western phenomenon because of the individualistic nature of the great
philosophers. Each of them is one of a kind. Eastern thinkers in contrast
tended to be more embedded in the prevailing religion and culture in which they
had lived. They were more like cult figures than individualists obstinately
ploughing their own fields.
Moreover, classical Greek
philosophy in particular applied reason to the material world in a way that is
not found in the speculative systems of India, the mysticism of Taoism, or the
gentlemanly precepts of Confucianism. The ancient Greeks believed that reason
was an essential feature of human beings and not just the prerogative of
philosophers. It was fashionable among the Greeks to be lovers of truth who
were possessed with a passion for knowledge of all kinds. Otherwise, they would
have had no lasting interest in philosophers or their offerings. Such
singlemindedness in the pursuit of philosophy has been a particular
characteristic of western culture. It was not found anywhere else in the world
until recent times.
….
P. 22 Pythagoras (c.
570-500 BCE)
The name of Pythagoras
outshines that of any other early Greek philosophers, and rightly so since the
whole science of mathematics originates in his work and that of his successors.
He was reputedly born on Samos and his interest in mathematics may have been
stimulated by early visits to Babylonia and Egypt ….
Certainly he brought to the
study of mathematics something of an oriental adoration.
P. 33
‘The European philosophical
traditions consist of a series of footnotes to Plato’ …so said [Professor] A.N.
Whitehead.
Zoroaster, Sirach,
Heraclitus
“Heraclitus did not merely employ an oracular mode of expression: he
was an oracle. What he said was a revelation and he was its prophet. Heraclitus
was far from the early rationalist or primitive scientist he has been made out
to be. He was what we today would call a mystic”.
Nicolas
Elias Leon Ruiz
“The Zoroastrian
origins of Greek philosophy”, as argued in an article entitled:
Judaism
The Beginnings of
Greek Philosophy
would mean more
specifically, according to traditions about Zoroaster as previously mentioned, the
‘Jewish (Baruchian) origins of Greek Philosophy’.
Although
Hebrew-Jewish influences upon Greek philosophy and its origins extended back
far beyond Baruch, the suggestion that the Greeks were by no means the founders
of philosophy is right in accordance with my theory (based in part upon part
clues left by the Church Fathers) that the earliest philosophers whom one meets
in any standard History of Ancient Philosophy - the so-called ‘Ionian Greeks’, beginning
with Thales - were in fact Hebrews/Israelites (later Jews).
Upon Thales, one of the so-called
‘seven sages of antiquity’, is bestowed the honorific title, “First
Philosopher”. He, supposedly an Ionian Greek, that is, from western Asia, was
actually, as I have argued elsewhere, the great biblical Patriarch Joseph,
distorted by Greek legends. The name ‘Thales’ is likely a corruption of
Joseph’s name in Egypt, Ptah-(hotep), the wise and legendary Old Kingdom scribe
who, like Joseph, lived to be 110. He is also the genius, Imhotep, builder of
the famous Step Pyramid of Saqqara: what we have considered to be a material
icon of his father Jacob’s dream of a staircase unto heaven (Genesis 28:12).
Mark Glouberman
has ironically, in “Jacob’s Ladder. Personality and Autonomy in the Hebrew
Scriptures”, exalted the supposed rational triumph of the ‘Greek’ Thales, “Western
rationality’s trademark mastery over the natural world”, over the “earlier
[religious] mode of thought” of the Hebrews. “… Thales forecast the
bumper crop by observing climatic regularities, not by interpreting dreams of
lean kine and fat, nor by deciphering the writing on the wall …”.Glouberman
calls this a “Hellenic Götterdämmerung” (Mentalities/ Mentalités,13,
1-2, 1998, p. 9).
So my view of who influenced whom
with regard to early philosophy is quite the opposite of what our
western education has told us.
Now, this brings
me to another important Patristic contribution relevant to the biblical Sirach:
the view of Saint Clement of Alexandria, that Sirach had influenced Heraclitus.
Chris de Wet
tells of it in his article, “John
Chrysostom’s use of the Book of Sirach in his homilies on the New Testament”: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4624/DeWet-SHEXXXVI_2_-October2010.pdf?sequence=1
The golden age of Greek
patristic literature, that is, the fourth and fifth centuries, are no exception
as far as the popularity of Sirach. Besides John Chrysostom, nearly all of the
most prominent authors of this period cite from Sirach, including, inter alia,
Clement of Alexandria … Ambrose … and Augustine…. Clement of Alexandria even
believed that Sirach had influenced the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (Strom.
2.5; Bright 1999:1064). ….
Chronologically,
this is an extraordinary statement by Saint Clement, considering that Sirach
would conventionally be located centuries after Heraclitus. It ranks in conventional
chronological awkwardness with the view of St. Ambrose that Plato knew Jeremiah
in Egypt.
This view has
led to an interesting question by Daniel Lattier (January 9, 2017), recalling what
the Fathers had believed: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-plato-get-his-ideas-bible
Did Plato Get His Ideas from the Bible?
The other day I was
reading St. Augustine’s (354-430) De Doctrina Christiana—a
treatise that played an enormous role in shaping Western education—and came
across an interesting passage in Book 2. In it, Augustine responds to the
charge that Jesus Christ derived his teachings from Plato. Drawing on his
mentor St. Ambrose (340-397),
he denies the charge, and responds that Plato actually borrowed from Jewish
thinkers!
“The illustrious bishop
[Ambrose], when by his investigations into profane history he had discovered
that Plato made a journey into Egypt at the time
when Jeremiah the prophet was there, show[ed] that it is much more likely that
Plato was through Jeremiah's means initiated into our literature, so as to be
able to teach and write those views of his which are so justly praised?”
Augustine also makes the
same claim of Pythagoras, namely, that his thought on God depended upon Jewish
thinkers, and by proxy, divine revelation.
In his classic The City of God,
Augustine later rejected the Jeremiah connection,
since the prophet was dead long before Plato visited Egypt. And he also notes
that Plato couldn’t have read the Hebrew Scriptures directly, because they
hadn’t yet been translated into Greek. But he nevertheless still believes that
affinities between these Scriptures and Plato’s writings means that the latter
probably studied them through a translator.
I looked further, and
discovered that the thesis that Plato borrowed from the Jews was not uncommon
in the ancient world. In a post for First Things,
Peter Leithart draws upon Theophilus Gale’s 17th-century work Court of the
Gentiles in relaying the tradition of this thesis:
“[Gale] knows he is in a
long tradition of Jewish and Christian thought. Aristobulus, a Jew, claims that
Plato followed the institutes of the Jews carefully, and this is repeated by
Clement and Eusebius. All make the same claim about Pythagoras. Tertullian
claims in his Apology that all poets and sophists draw
from prophets.
Gale denies that the
notion that Plato borrowed from Jews is a Christian prejudice. Pagan
philosophers say the same. Hermippus of Smyrna, who [wrote a] life of
Pythagoras, says that he ‘transferred many things out of the Jewish
Institutions into his own philosophy’ and calls him ‘imitator of Jewish
Dogmas.’ Gale takes from Grotius the notion that Pythagoras lived among Jews.
Numenius is reputed to have said, ‘What is Plato but Moses Atticizing?
Heraclitus - who, or whatever he may
have been - seems to be one of the most substantial of the early philosophers. Might
he even have been based upon Sirach, a full-on sage?
Whatever may be
the case, for: “We have no idea of who and what he was” (see below), it seems
that there is a common mystical element to be considered, contrary to
Glouberman’s mistaken view of “Western rationality’s trademark mastery over
the natural world”, over the “earlier [religious] mode of thought”
of the Hebrews. For studies more astute than Glouberman’s and those of his same
opinion, the majority, would indicate that some of these ancient philosophers -
so limited by those cramped commentators of history to merely natural
philosophy and the elements (earth fire water, etc.) - were actually
men of great wisdom and enlightenment, religious and mystical. For a deeper
understanding of this, I suggest one read for instance: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache
Heraclitus and the Work of Awakening
A Dissertation Presented
by
Nicolas
Elias Leon Ruiz
In his Abstract, Ruiz well explains
why commentators have invariably found Heraclitus to be an ‘obscure’ thinker:
…. Heraclitus is universally
regarded as one of the fathers of western philosophy.
However, the characterization
of the nature of his contribution varies widely. To some he is an early example
of rational, empirical, scientific inquiry into the physical world. To others
he was primarily a brilliantly innovative metaphysician. Still others prefer to
see him as the distant ancestor of the great German dialecticians of the 19thcentury.
In the 20th century, certain existential phenomenologists all but claimed him
as one of their own.
Behind all of this stands a
fundamental set of assumptions that is never questioned. Whatever else may be
the case, we know that Heraclitus was, essentially, a rational human being like
ourselves. He was a philosopher, concerned with explanation and exposition. He
was a thinker, and his fragments encapsulate his thought.
It is because of this that
Heraclitus has been completely misunderstood. We have no idea of who and what
he was. We do not understand what he was saying. Perhaps the greatest irony is
that Heraclitus himself, at the very outset of what he wrote, explicitly
predicted that this would happen.
Everyone who writes about
Heraclitus will make at least passing reference to his legendary obscurity.
Some will talk about the oracular character of his writing. A few go so far as
to say that his thought bears the traces of revelation, his expression, of prophecy.
This is as far as it goes. The problem is that this rather metaphorical way of
talking about Heraclitus misses the point entirely. His writing was not just
“obscure,” it was esoteric.
Heraclitus did not merely
employ an oracular mode of expression: he was an oracle. What he said was a
revelation and he was its prophet. Heraclitus was far from the early
rationalist or primitive scientist he has been made out to be. He was what we
today would call a mystic.
….
This estimation
by Ruiz would also help to explain why it has been observed (emphasis added):
“In dealing with pre-Socratic thought, A N Marlow tells us we find ourselves in
an atmosphere more akin to that of the Orient than to that of the West”.
