Thursday, October 10, 2013

The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry. M. L. West



M. L. West, The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. 662. ISBN 0-19-815221-3 (pb). $55.00.




Reviewed by Barry Powell, University of Wisconsin-Madison (bbpowell@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Word count: 5203 words


In M. L. West's exemplary edition of Hesiod's Theogony, published in 1966, W. claimed that "Greece is part of Asia; Greek literature is a Near Eastern literature" (p. 31), a remarkable claim when everyone knew that Greece is part of Europe and its literature unlike anything that appeared in the Near East. Yet in the last thirty years others have made similar claims. W. Burkert, especially, argued that "Akkadian cuneiform side by side with Aramaic, Phoenician, and Greek alphabetic script produces a continuum of written culture in the eighth century which stretches from the Euphrates to Italy" (The Orientalizing Revolution, Cambridge, Mass., 1992, p. 31). Here W. sets out to prove his thesis, now a generation old, and we might be disturbed that he has succeeded so well.
There are twelve chapters, which I will briefly review in order.
In the first chapter, "Aegean and Orient," W. takes a bird's-eye view of salient features of Near Eastern and Aegean cultures that for explanation cry out for direct transmission or a common origin. He does not say this, but if one were to compare Bronze Age Greece with Bronze Age China or the Hopi Indians of Arizona one would not expect to find such common elements, here traceable to ancient routes of trade and communication over north Syria, through Cyprus and Rhodes, to Crete and the Aegean. These are cultural artifacts and not the result of parallel evolution.
Such common elements include a substantial list of loan words, often designating commodities, but also social institutions such as kingship with its complex functions and trappings of ritual. The treaties cast by Aegean and Near Eastern kings contain similar formulas. Means of accounting, counting, and weighing are similar or identical. No one disputes the Near Eastern origin of writing on clay tablets or of the Greek alphabet. Musical instruments, and no doubt how they were played and for what reasons, are the same in East and West, as are styles of luxurious behavior. Zeus is a god of storm and high places, and so was Baal of the Levant; each received the same kinds of sacrifices performed in the same way. Finally, W. emphasizes how the transmission of cultural artifacts did not take place at one time but was an ongoing process demonstrable from the Early Mycenaean period down to the sixth century B.C. Chapter 1 is an overview of the whole argument, developed in the rest of the book.
It is hard to restrain enthusiasm, or measure praise, for Chapter 2, "Ancient Literatures of Western Asia," which tells us in short compass the things we want to know about these opaque literatures but could not find the time to discover. First, a bilingual cultural continuum of the Sumero-Akkadians beginning in the third millennium has left mythical narrative poems about a man who escaped the flood, about a hero Gilgamesh who killed a great monster and sought to escape mortality, and about the emergence of the world order through the agency of watery beings. These myths, which tell of the exploits of gods, are now fairly well known among classicists, but little known is the evidence for "historical epic," narratives flattering the conquests of kings. As W. proceeds he illuminates with consistent clarity the meaning of his terms, the relations of language to language and script to script, and in his bibliography alerts the reader to the major publications. W. also describes Sumero-Akkadian wisdom literature, hymns, disputations, and royal inscriptions.
W. turns next to the extremely important Bronze Age literature from Ugarit, the north Syrian port and virtual gateway to the West. Ugaritic literature was written in a writing structurally identical to the later West Semitic Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hebrew scripts, whence sprang the Greek alphabet; so-called Ugaritic cuneiform is the earliest clear historical attestation to this family of scripts. Ugarit therefore offers hope for a tradition in which Homer appears in a direct line of descent. Extant Ugaritic poetry preserves accounts of war among the gods, especially the storm-god Baal's war against Yammu, "Sea," and Mot, "Death." Some poems are about men, however, and we have some hymns.
Next, Hebrew literature, by which is meant, of course, the Bible, a topic of gargantuan proportions that W. somehow summarizes in eight pages: songs, psalms, prophets, wisdom, the Song of Songs, history. Remarkably, there is no epic in Hebrew literature.
Our most regretted loss is the closely related Phoenician literature, because the inventor of the Greek alphabet knew this form of the West Semitic writing, or was even himself a Phoenician. Its nearly complete loss must depend on its having been preserved on papyrus or leather, on the lack of a tradition of writing on clay.
Finally, the ill-defended Hurrians of north Syria, called the Mitanni, prominent internationally in the Late Bronze Age, took over Sumero-Akkadian traditions and handed them to the Indo-European Hittites of Anatolia, who occupied the lands of Mitanni in the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. From this tradition must come the Hurro-Hittite stories about the storm god Teshub's conflict with the older god Kumarbi, evidently the model for Hesiod's Theogony.
Chapter 3, "Of Heaven and Earth," explores the world of the gods, arguing that the features of divine apparatus so familiar to us from Greek poetry are not Greek at all, but raw imports from the East. The organization of heaven, presided over by a company of gods at which stands a powerful patriarch, appears to be Sumerian in origin, copied by Akkadians, Hurrians, Hittites, West Semites, and finally the Greeks. In both East and West the world is divided into provinces over which certain gods exercise priority. From time to time they appear among mortals, their presence revealed by an aura of brilliance. Although Zeus is Indo-European in origin, his office, epithets, and forms of behavior are taken from Eastern literary archetypes.
Even so are the relations of humans to the divine realm similar in the East and West, and such specific myths as the destruction of mankind, and such themes as the loss of perpetual youth, the knowledge of good and evil, and the necessity for toil to survive in a fallen world that is distant from a heaven to which men once had admittance. Even so, in East as in West, does human suffering come from the gods' anger, as do human blessings and divine favor granted to certain individuals. Kingship comes from heaven, or has its blessing, and human kings can even become gods. The division of the universe into heaven, earth, sea, and underworld is Eastern, as is the notion that a gate opens into heaven and that water bounds the cosmos.
Such very odd expressions as "the navel of the earth" turn out to have Semitic models. Ghosts, too behave in similar ways in Greece and the ancient East: they "go down" to their abode, but never return. Water separates this world from the next, which, like heaven, is entered through gates. The land of no return is also a house, ruled over by a king or queen, a place of gloom and filth. There the strengthless dead abide, bloodless and weak.
In Chapter 4, "Ars Poetica," West examines specific forms of style and expression, things we ordinarily take to be culturally specific. Whereas verse forms so complex as the hexameter cannot be found in the East (on the other hand, they could not have been notated in prealphabetic writings), recurring phrases and otiose means of expression are as common there as they are in Homeric epic. Narrative strategies are strikingly similar, too, for example the initiation of action by describing an unsatisfactory situation followed by complaint to the gods, their deliberation, and finally measures taken. In just this way Homer initiates the action of the Iliad, and it recurs repeatedly in Near Eastern narrative.
The "Divine Comedy" of gods familiar from Greek archaic poetry can be paralleled in most particulars: the assembly to determine action, often on a mountain top, but often too with dissension of certain gods against the chief god; the gods' intervention on earth among the affairs of men; the dream, either as message or symbol; the messenger as agent of narrative action; the use of direct speech introduced by stereotyped formulas and such responses a speech can elicit as downcast eyes, biting one's lip, or smacking one's thighs.
Genre scenes that punctuate the narrative are similar in Greece and in the East: scenes of feasting where singers entertain and visitors arrive, sometimes refusing to take their seats, and scenes of dressing and journeys by chariot. In descriptions of war, focus falls on the last year or the final stages of the war. The king addresses his army. Gideon, like Agamemnon, "tested" his troops, only to discover they all wanted to go home. We get a catalogue of forces. Gods lead armies in battle. They smash the weapons of heroes. In battle, first comes a kill, then a breaking-up into individual encounters. Dust envelops the warriors. A great man goes berserk and kills many. Single combat is waged, as between Hector and Ajax or David and Goliath. Threats are made, for example that the enemy will be eaten by dogs. A plea for mercy is refused. City-sackers kill everything in sight, men, women, children. Similes, long or short, enhance vividness. In Ugaritic "he was groaning like a lion"; in Homer he was "groaning like a bearded lion." So pervasive and detailed are the similarities between such elements in Near Eastern poetry and Greek poetry that we cannot doubt a historical connection.
Chapter 5, "A Form of Words," looks more closely at resemblances between actual verbal formulations. So the earth is "broad" and "dark" in both traditions. Decisions are made "by the will of the gods" and the outcome "lies on the knees of the gods." The hands of God or the gods lie upon the people. Kings are "servants " of gods. The gods "hear the voice" of suppliants. Collections of deities are "sons of gods." Battles are "mixed," the slain "bite the dust." In speeches words flow "like honey" and if false are "twisted." Tears are common in moments of tension. Thoughts are formed "in the heart" or come from outside, falling upon one. Soil is "fat." Iniquity "reaches to heaven" and warriors "trust in their strength." "Forever" is "all days." Beautiful women are "equal to a goddess." Kings are "bulls." Battalions advance "like storm-clouds," as numberless "as sand" or "as the stars." Heroes are "lions" or "wolves."
The bird of prey destroying the weak is a common image. The fearful enemy flee "like deer." Warriors pour forth like "wasps from a nest." Missiles "rain from the sky." Heroes groan for fallen comrades like "a lion whose cubs are stolen." The wounded groan "like women in childbirth." Important structures gleam "like the sun or the moon." Cloth "shines like a star." Hearts are "of stone," words are "windy," and the same word designates "grain" and "life."
Speech is figured in similar ways, making use of anaphora, epanalepsis, and rhetorical questions. A story may begin, "There is a city called...." Numerals in the first class are increased by one in the second ("seven years were completed, eight revolutions of time"). Peoples say "Ooh" and "Ah." Hymns and prayers present similar imagery. The power of divinities is cosmic in extent. The king of the gods assigns powers to lesser gods. A god increases or decreases "as he wishes." Prayers begin with the god's name in the vocative. The god is asked to come to the suppliant's side. Requests of certain kinds follow a certain order. Past benefits are recorded. Some prayers issue blank checks, for anything desirable.
Chapter 6, "Hesiod," takes up an author about which W. can be said to be the world's leading expert (although he still insists that Hesiod is older than Homer). About the Eastern background to Hesiod there has been long agreement. The Succession Myth of the Theogony, whereby one generation of gods replaces another, appears to have originated in the Near East. W. summarizes Hesiod's account, then those of the Hurro-Hittite story of Kumarbi and draws astute points of comparison. He does the same with the Babylonian Enuma elish and the so-called Phoenician History of Sanchuniathion, a Hadrianic work that preserves genuine Phoenician tradition.
Henceforth W. goes through the Theogony systematically. Hesiod receives his gift of song from the Muses; even so do Eastern scribes receive messages in dreams. Sky mates with Earth, but this nearly universal motif could come from anywhere, W. admits. Iapetos looks like Japheth, but there the similarity ends. Eastern Ea and Greek Kronos each take the initiative when the other gods cower in fear. For Hesiod, the castration of Ouranos is the separation of heaven and earth, but castration in the Hurro-Hittite myth of Kumarbi does not seem to have the same meaning. Aphrodite, sprung from the genitals of Ouranos, looks like the Phoenician Astarte, called Queen of Heaven. The odd Greek god Oath has a close Assyrian parallel. Hesiod's hymn to Hecate has close parallels in Babylonian hymns. At Delphi could be seen the stone that Kronos swallowed; it was called baidylos, from the Semitic "house of God" like the stone on which Jacob slept. In the Ugaritic Baal epic, and in Hesiod, a divine craftsman makes weapons for the storm god. Prometheus and Ea, crafty gods each, help mankind against a persecuting senior god. Atlas bears resemblance to the Hurro-Hittite monster Ubelluri and to Ullikummi, a stone monster that grows from Ubelluri's shoulder.
In the Greek theomachy, descriptions of battle parallel Eastern ones, including the image of a horde of weapons blocking the sky. Titans are like the Hittite "Former Gods," who too were imprisoned in the underworld, sometimes, like the Titans, twelve in number. Typhon seems to be derived from the Ugaritic Sapon, god of Mount Casius north of Ugarit; Sapon was equivalent to the storm god Baal, but an early story may have told how Baal imprisoned Sapon in the mountain. Certainly an ancient Eastern story told of a god's war against a many-headed serpent; Typhoeus was the monster with the hundred heads, whom in one version Zeus defeated on Mount Casius. After his victory Zeus assigned the gods their offices, just as in Eastern parallels.
Of course Works and Days belongs to the ancient Eastern genre of wisdom literature wherein a wise or prophetic teacher admonishes errant rulers, or a relative. Many of Hesiod's apothegms have strong Eastern parallels, for example the admonishment to labor and the need to avoid idleness. The Prometheus myth's explanation of sacrificial practice has Eastern precedents, as does Zeus's gleeful prediction of disaster when deceived. Many deities, as often in the East, work to make a creature, Pandora; her jar may reflect Hittite incantation ritual. Parallels to the certainly non-Greek myths of the five races have long been noticed in Iran and Judea, including specific features: long-life, good weather, and a single language for the Golden Age, followed by short-life and a breakdown of family and virtue in the last age. The folktale of the hawk and nightingale is not attested specifically in the East, but animal fable is part of the genre of wisdom literature from the earliest times. The promise of good times to follow on righteous behavior is paralleled closely by Yahweh's instructions to Moses on Mount Sinai, as are similar Hesiodic moral precepts by other Eastern sources, as well as Hesiod's hemerology and bird-omens.
W. begins Chapter 7, "The Iliad", with a comparison between the Greek hero Achilles, anomalous in many ways, with Gilgamesh. Each has a divine mother important to the action, who intercedes with the other gods on her son's behalf; each hero is impulsive and emotional; each has a close friend who dies, prompting a railing against mortality, followed by an acceptance of it. W. then gathers interesting detailed comparanda between Ninsun (Gilgamesh' divine mother) and Thetis; similarities to Patroclus' sortie, the kinds of lamentations held over Patroclus' body, and especially details of the ghostly appearance to Patroclus, so like that of Enkidu to Gilgamesh. Priam's meeting with Achilles is in some ways similar to Gilgamesh's meeting with Utnapishtim.
The rest of the long chapter is devoted to a detailed and manifold catalogue of incidents, motifs, and expressions in the Iliad that appear to have Near Eastern antecedents. For example, the gods leaping to their feet at an assembly, advice to yield to the storm god when he is angry, the houses and sleep of the gods, the false dream before a battle, the portent of a snake turned to stone, the use of messengers for transmitting instructions, flies gathering around milk pails, the breaking of a truce, a god who grows sky-high, a god's imprisonment in a jar, gods who give mighty war shouts, humans who come and go like leaves on the trees, the Chimaera, wise never to have been born, armor hung in a temple as booty, the weak isolated hero who kills a giant, making love to one's father's concubine, picturesque personifications; drops of blood from the sky; a hero-sized cup; a wall destroyed by flood, a magic staff, seduction by the sex goddess, images of cows protecting calves, speech that is sweeter than honey, animals that prophesy, the scale of fate, peace between lions and men, and many more.
Chapter 8, "The Odyssey," follows the same method. Odysseus, who prefers cunning to brute face-off, is no Gilgamesh but in his adventures sometimes has similar experiences. Both heroes are said in a prologue to have traveled widely and to have gained knowledge thereby. The strange Circe and Calypso, friendly goddesses in remote parts, are like the ale-wife Siduri who meets Gilgamesh at the edge of the waters. The Greek island of Aiaia, where Circe daughter of Helios lives, is evidently traceable to the Babylonian goddess Aya, wife of the sun-god and goddess of sexual love. Circe's very name, "hawk," may be connected with the hawk-headed sun-god of Egypt, exported to Phoenicia. Circe otherwise resembles Ishtar, with her competence over transforming drugs and wild animals. The Mesopotamian poem about Nergal and Ereshkigal show Nergal bullying Ereshkigal as Odysseus does Circe, with similar results. Each goddess gives advice about crossing the dangerous waters of death to consult with a prophet. Calypso, "the veiled one," reminds us that Siduri too is veiled, and both goddesses send heroes into the woods to cut timber for a sea journey. Calypso's list of men punished through a goddess's love sounds like Ishtar's complaint when Gilgamesh spurns her. Her offer of immortality to Odysseus reminds us that Gilgamesh, in his journey across the waters, sought just that.
The never-never land of the Phaeacians has much in common with the land of Utnapishtim, as Odysseus' savage appearance before Nausicaa echoes Gilgamesh's appearance before Siduri. The theme of the naked unkempt man who is clothed and taken to the city, as Nausicaa takes Odysseus to town, parallels the harlot's taming of Enkidu by the waterhole. Returning from Aeolus' island, Odysseus falls asleep and loses Ithaca, just as Gilgamesh cannot remain awake outside the house of Utnapishtim. Numerous similarities tie the Odyssean Nekuia with the poem Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Underworld, including the man who died by falling off a roof. As Odysseus' men perish when they kill the cattle of the sun, so does Enkidu die after he and Gilgamesh kill the bull of heaven, and in both cases a god threatens to invert the upper and lower worlds unless the god's will prevails.
In the remainder of the chapter W. presents a catalogue of incidents and passages with possible Near Eastern antecedents: Menelaus' fathering of a child on a concubine; the splendor of Alcinous' palace; Menelaus' transportation to a paradise at the ends of the earth; Penelope's refusal to eat; the four streams of water on Calypso's island; Calypso's special food of ambrosia and nectar; the simile of the wind and the chaff; Nausicaa compared to a date palm; the metal dogs before the palace of Alcinous; the disappearance of the island of the Phaeacians; the spurned sacrifice; the use of protective plants (moly); Odysseus' necromancy on the shores of Ocean; the name of the Sirens; the suitors' reluctance to kill one of royal stock; Penelope's bed, covered with tears; the punishment by amputation of ears and nose; the radiance surrounding a divinity; birth "from oak or stone"; the bow that only the hero can draw; the archery contest; a suitor's hurling of a leg of beef at Odysseus; Laertes' fainting at reunion with Odysseus. In conclusion, W. notes how twice as many Eastern poetic motifs are found in the Iliad as in the Odyssey, and that those parallels to the Iliad belong to the early parts of the Gilgamesh story, as those parallel to the Odyssey are modeled on wanderings after the death of Enkidu.
In Chapter 9, "Myths and Legends of Heroes," W. discusses Near Eastern elements in Greek literature of the archaic period. Some such features are folktale motifs, for example the foundling; the magic hair that ensures power or security; the twin brothers who fight in the womb; the man who is thrown from a ship and rescued by a fish; the person who escapes pursuit by praying to a god and being changed into something else; and the hasty oath, like the one Jephthah made to Yahweh. From the story of Io we find such familiar Eastern themes as the celestial god's love for a heifer, attested in Akkadian, Hurro-Hittite, and Ugaritic myth. Epaphos, son of Io and Zeus, is evidently the Egyptian bull-god Apis, while Belos, Arabos, Nilos, and Libya have obvious Eastern origins. The strange story of the fifty sons of Aegyptos and the fifty sons of Danaos has a near parallel in a Hittite myth.
W.'s discussion of the Kadmos myth is especially strong, and he builds a cogent model for the name Kadmeioi (whence Kadmos) as coming from the Semitic "men of eld," an iron-age description of the inhabitants of the Theban acropolis, and even the name of Harmonia may derive from Semitic for "fortress," the Kadmeia. Asterios, who married Europa, he derives from Semitic Astarte, the male form, so that the story of their marriage may derive from a sacred union of bull and cow.
Among Argive myths, the odd leprosy that strikes the Proetids is common in the Near East. The Gorgo's head has long been connected with representations of Humbaba, whose glance too could bring death; kibisis, Perseus' pouch, seems to be a Semitic word. Turning to the myths of Thebes, W. picks up W. Burkert's speculative attachment of the myth of the seven to an Eastern rite of exorcism, in which seven demons are expelled.
The myths of Heracles seem almost entirely Eastern in origin: the story of his birth, so like Egyptian propaganda for the birth of pharaoh in the New Kingdom; his being cheated of his birthright, as was Esau by Jacob; his strangling of serpents, illustrated on Eastern seals. Most of the exploits find Eastern parallels, sometimes very close (the lion combat, the seven-headed hydra, the golden apples of the Hesperides), and are especially reminiscent of the adventures of Samson, who like Heracles killed a lion with his bare hands and was undone by a woman. The very notion of a cycle of labors is Eastern too, reminiscent of the eleven labors of the hero Ninurta.
Stories of the Tantalids show tantalizing similarities with Hittite myths, appropriate because Lydia, whence came Pelops, is in the cultural sphere of the Hittites of central Anatolia. The name of Myrtilus, Pelops' charioteer, sounds like Mursili, name of three Hittite kings, and Tantalus' name too may be Hittite. The backwards course of the sun in the struggle between Atreus and Thyestes for the throne of Mycenae is easily paralleled from the reign of Hezekiah.
Phaethon looks a lot like Eastern gods who fell from heaven (including Lucifer). A bird carried Ganymede to heaven, as an eagle cared Mesopotamian Etana there. The Golden Fleece of the Argonautica looks like the holy fleece common in Hittite rite.
From the Trojan cycle, Zeus' desire to alleviate an overpopulated earth appears in the Mesopotamian story of Atrahasis, telling of the Flood. Peleus' struggle with Thetis looks like Jacob's struggle with an angel, probably in origin a river spirit, and the motif of the wedding which the gods attended appears also in the Ugaritic Keret epic. Odysseus' feigned madness to avoid the draft looks like the madness of David on the run from Saul. The extraordinary self-immolation of Ajax is paralleled by Saul's falling on his sword, as Philoctetes' special bow, and narrative role, also appear in the East. The theft of the Palladion is like that of the statue of Marduk, stolen and restolen over a period of 800 years. Enlil's statue flashes and moves of its own accord, as does the Palladion. The wooden horse looks like an Assyrian siege engine, both in design and function. The mission of Menelaus and Odysseus to Troy, where Antenor, later spared, protects them, looks like that of Joshua's spies into Jericho, where a prostitute, later spared, protects them.
The flood story is unknown to Hesiod and, except in disguised form, to Homer, but comes to Greece perhaps in the sixth century B.C. Its similarities to Eastern versions, both in general theme and in specific detail, have long been noticed, and there can be no question of its origin. If it does come to Greece only in the archaic age, there is clear evidence for the continuation of the transmission of culture from the late Iron Age, at least, into the classical period: transmission did not take place all at one time.
Chapter 10, devoted to the The Lyric Poets, reviews elements of all kinds in the poets of the Archaic period, to find various phrases, sentiments, or rhetorical postures common also in Eastern literatures. W. fixes on social institutions such as that of the scurrilous commentator, found in Mesopotamia as well as on Paros. He finds arresting parallels in the East for the licentious women important to the poetry of Archilochus, as well as fellatio, performed against a temple wall, compared to sucking beer through a tube. Such proverbial statements as "nothing surprises me any more" are Eastern in origin too, as are animal fables and their morals.
He finds verbal echoes in Callinus and Mimnermus of Eastern poetry, and Solon's moral maxims belong to Eastern wisdom literature. Even the social tension in Theognis, and the fear of the rising lower class, is closely paralleled by older Semitic models. In the Melic poets, "dream-like" to mean "fine" is Eastern. In an interesting discussion, he shows how Sappho consistently takes imagery generated in an Eastern religious context then secularizes it and applies it to love. Antiphony in Sappho appears to be Eastern, and she is our oldest testimony to the Eastern cult of Adonis. W. notes other similarities in Stesichorus, Ibycus, Anacreon, Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides.
Chapter 11 is given to Aeschylus. W. goes through each play systematically. From the Persai he notices an odd use of "lord," very like a Semitic idiom, the motif of the royal person worried by a dream, and certain features of Assyrian cult practice. The raising of the ghost of Darius looks like the witch of Endor, and the series of rhetorical questions meaning, "Where are they now?" reflect Eastern convention.
The Supplices offers a clear imitation of divine titles and epithets for Zeus earlier applied to Baal. Also here we find the Eastern metaphor the "tablets of the heart." So are scepter and throne coupled, and the Danaids, as in Akkadian prayers, wish to turn into smoke and escape. Victories are awarded by divine judgment.
Various phrases and images of divine power in the Agamemnon, including the net, have good Eastern parallels. So do "panegyric metaphor-strings," where a potentate is praised by a list of bold metaphors. From other plays he gathers such parallels as calling the sun "the lamp of the gods." W. does not regard the Prometheus as composed by Aeschylus, but perhaps by his son. Its debt to Eastern models is, however, deep, including the notion that humans once lived in primitive conditions and the cosmic cataclysm that closes the play. The traditions that W. has been tracing appear to dry up after Aeschylus, when Greek writers grow away from habits of their Eastern forebears to fashion new styles of expression.
Chapter 12, "The Question of Transmission," addresses the extremely complex question of just how Eastern traditions might have passed to Greece. W. identifies two historical periods in which such transmission was likely to have taken place, in the Late Bronze Age and in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The question of transmission is of course intimately bound up with writing and how writing was used and by whom. In the East, writing was in the hands of a scribal class, whereas in Greece amateurs could write. Eastern scribes were always biliterate or bilingual, whereas in Greece they never were. The relation between oral performance and transmission is especially tangled. From hints here and there we can conclude that Eastern singers were not, in general, literate, but learned their songs from written texts, read aloud by scribes. The style of Eastern literary texts leaves no doubt that they were sometimes intended to be heard as song; the enormously repetitive style only makes sense on this assumption. Sometimes colophons indicate that an Eastern text is to be accompanied by this or that musical instrument. We hear of a professional singer called naru, evidently something like the Greek aoidos. Dictation of poetic texts does not seem likely for the cuneiform tradition, but far more likely for the West Semitic one, whence the Greek descended directly. Certainly the Ugaritic poems were meant to support oral performance in some way. The scribe of the Baal epic even signed his work, which he may have taken down by dictation (just as the Homeric poems were recorded).
Still, we cannot expect transmission of the cultural artifacts described in this book to have taken place through written means. The ethnically mixed populations of north Syria, Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, and southern Italy must have produced many bilingual speakers of Semitic and Greek, and some of these must have been singers. We know of the presence of interpreters at all times to serve the international community of traders and travelers, and much other intermingling was brought about through war, mercenary service, and colonization. Assyrian aggression beginning in the ninth century B.C. surely drove the Phoenician expansion in the Western Mediterranean, and into various Greek lands. At the hands of the immigrant bilingual poet we must place responsibility for the transmission of culture from East to West.
This is an extraordinary book, rich in deep learning, astute insight, and pellucid argument to support a radical thesis. I was happy to be persuaded, because I have long felt that something like this must have happened; but we can only admire the thoroughness and sobriety by which W. makes his argument. Every classicist should read this book, one of the most important in the last generation.
 
....
 

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Emmet Sweeney Identifies Hattusilis with Alyattes of Lydia

 
[The AMAIC does not accept all of Emmet's revised dates]
 

 
Hattusilis, King of Lydia

Hattusilis, King of Lydia

In his Ramses II and his Time (1978) Velikovsky argued that Ramses II, the great warrior pharaoh of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty, reigned in the first half of the sixth century BC, and not in the thirteenth century BC, as conventional scholarship believes. In support of this dating Velikovsky brought forward manifold proofs, from many different disciplines; and, from an archaeological perspective at least, the case he presented was compelling.
There were however two major problems: First and foremost, if Ramses II was to be placed in the sixth century, this meant opening a gap of two centuries between the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (which Velikovsky placed in the latter ninth century) and the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty (which Velikovsky placed in the latter seventh century). Critics were quick to point that an overwhelming body of evidence showed the Nineteenth Dynasty to have directly followed the Eighteenth, with no hiatus of any kind.
The second problem centred round the identity of Hattusilis, the Great King of the Hatti or Hittites, against whom Ramses II waged war for many years. Velikovsky argued that Hattusilis was none other than Nebuchadrezzar, the King of the Chaldaeans, who is said to have deported the population of Judah to Babylonia sometime in the first half of the sixth century BC. But this identification caused immense problems, as Velikovsky’s critics (and some of his allies) were quick to point out. Most pressingly, how could Hattusilis, whose capital city was in the middle of Anatolia and who never claimed to rule Mesopotamia, be identified with a king of Babylonia who never claimed to rule Anatolia? This was a crucial point; one which, notwithstanding the ingenious arguments presented by Velikovsky, he could not counter.
The answer to the conundrum was finally provided, I believe, by the stratigraphic evidence brought forward by Gunnar Heinsohn in the 1980s. Essentially, Heinsohn found that the Nineteenth Dynasty did come directly before the Persian Age, as Velikovsky claimed (ie in the sixth century), but that the Eighteenth Dynasty immediately preceded the Nineteenth Dynasty – which therefore placed it in the seventh century (actually, late eighth and seventh centuries). This meant bringing the whole of the Eighteenth Dynasty down the timescale by a further two centuries from the position accorded it by Velikovsky. If Heinsohn was right, then both the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties must have been contemporaries of the Medes, the great Indo-Iranian nation which had overthrown the Assyrians during the seventh century, and with the Lydians, the mighty power which controlled much of Anatolia in the same epoch.
As a matter of fact, the greatest power in the Fertile Crescent during the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty was that of the Mitanni, or Mita. These kings, who bore Indo-Iranian names and worshipped Indo-Iranian gods, were famous for having conquered the Old Assyrian kingdom, whose two most notable kings were named Sargon and Naram-Sin. It goes without saying that Heinsohn thus identified the Mitanni with the Medes, and the evidence he mustered for this was extremely compelling. It is an identification fully supported by the present writer.
Ancient writers insisted that during the period of Median supremacy much of Anatolia was controlled by Lydia; and indeed the Lydians were great rivals of the Medes. Now, whilst the monuments and diplomatic correspondences of the Mitanni period apparently make no mention of the Lydians, they do refer repeatedly to a mighty rival power centred in Anatolia. This was the kingdom of Hatti; the Hittite Empire.
Modern textbooks describe the Hittites as a mysterious people, a nation whose history and even existence had been forgotten until revealed by archaeologists in the nineteenth century. The “rediscovery” of the Hittites is held to be one of the great triumphs of modern archaeology. In the early days of archaeology, however, travellers to Anatolia were often inclined to associate the monuments and remains we now call “Hittite” with the ancient Lydians, and several carved bas-reliefs at Yazilikaya, just outside Boghaz-koi, were actually linked to specific events from Lydian history. Thus for example W.J. Hamilton in his Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (1842) remarked that in his opinion one of the major reliefs commemorated a treaty signed by Croesus with Cyrus around 550 B.C. “I am rather inclined to think that it represents the meeting of two coterminous kings, and that it was intended to commemorate a treaty of peace concluded between them. The Halys, which is not many miles distant, was long the boundary between the kingdoms of Lydia and Persia and it is possible that in the figure with the flowing robes we may recognise the king of Persia, and that in the other the king of Lydia, with his attendants, Lydians and Phrygians, for their headdress resembles the well-known Phrygian bonnet. This spot may have been chosen to commemorate the peace.” (W.J. Hamilton Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (1842) 393-95)
Another scholar of the same period also identified the monuments as Lydian, but inclined more to the view that the bas-relief commemorated a treaty signed by Croesus’ predecessor Alyattes with the Medes under Astyages. (H. Barth “Versuch einer eingehenden Erklärung der Felssculpturen von Boghaskoei in alten Kappadocien” Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1869) 128-75) According to Herodotus these two kings had met with their armies near the river Halys, but fighting broke off when the sun was eclipsed. (Herodotus, i, 74) Afterwards, through the efforts of the kings of Babylon and Cilicia a peace was negotiated and signed.
The more our knowledge of Hittite civilisation and history has grown, the more clear-cut the Lydian connection has become. The Boghaz-koi documents for example showed that a number of Hittite kings had borne the name Mursilis; identical to the name (Myrsilos) given by Herodotus to one of the greatest kings of Lydia. The language of the Hittite Empire, known as “Hittite” to us, but actually called “Neshili” in the Boghaz-koi texts, was found to be Indo-European. Further research into the linguistic make-up of ancient Asia Minor found that Lydian too was an Indo-European dialect - a dialect identical to “Hittite”. In the words of one scholar, “Linguistically Lydian is related to the Hittite-Luwian group, but the curious thing is that unlike most of its contemporaries it seems to be Hittite rather than Luwian.” (J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites (London, 1975) p. 59) In other words the Lydian language is one and the same as that of the Hittites in their Cappadocian heartland - Nesha/Neshili - rather than Luwian, a related tongue employed by many other peoples of Asia Minor and Anatolia, such as the Phrygians and Lycians. In explanation of this strange anomaly, the writer quoted above continues,
“One has to assume that in the disturbances following the collapse of the Hittite Empire a central Anatolian group had seized power among the ruins of Arzawa, and a memory of this may be preserved in the Herodotean story of a Heraclid dynasty with eastern connections which gained power in Lydia about 1200 BC.” (Ibid.)
Arzawa, of course, is the name given to the Lydian district in the Hittite documents, and indeed the word may be identical to Lydia, given the interchangeability of “l” and “r”, and the conjectural nature of vowels in cuneiform. Thus Arzawa may reasonably be reconstructed as “Lyzawa”.
The relationship between Arzawa/Lydia and the greater Hittite world has in fact caused considerable confusion amongst scholars, a confusion highlighted in the following statement;
“And so we reach the final position that the language originally known as Arzawan [Lydian] is in fact the language of the Hittites, while the language written in ‘Hittite Hieroglyphs’ is a dialect of the language of Arzawa.” (Ibid. pp. 24-5)
Thus the Lydian and Hittite kingdoms used the same language, occupied the same geographical space, and were, as we shall argue, contemporary.
It is generally presumed that the Hittite Empire took in only the eastern part of what was later to constitute the Lydian kingdom – a domain supposedly centred more on western Asia Minor. However, it is untrue to say that Hittite rule did not extend as far as the Aegean coast. The documents of Boghaz-koi show quite clearly that the regions comprising Lycia, Caria, Ionia and Aeolia were considered to be part of the Empire, and this has been confirmed by the discovery of Hittite monuments at Karabel near Smyrna, and on Mount Sipylus overlooking the Aegean.
If then we accept the Hittites as Lydians, how do they fit into the history of the period, and do the historical records of the Hittite period speak of events known to us from the classical authors? Do the two histories match?
An examination of the lives and careers of the last two Hittite emperors, Hattusilis III and Tudkhaliash IV, reveals a close match with the lives and careers of the last two Lydian kings, Alyattes and Croesus. The Hittite Empire came crashing to destruction during the time of Tudkhaliash IV, and we find the “Assyrian” king Tukulti-Ninurta boasting of carrying off great numbers of Hittite prisoners. Since Tukulti-Ninurta was a contemporary of Ramses II and Merneptah, it follows that (if we credit Velikovsky’s own chronological measuring-rod and place these kings in the sixth century), Tukulti-Ninurta must be associated with Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Lydia. As such, Hattusilis, who earlier waged a protracted war against Ramses II, must be the same person as Alyattes.
Classical sources inform us that Alyattes, was a mighty king who waged war against many of his neighbours, and who subjugated most of the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. This certainly does not contradict what we know of Hattusilis. We know that Hattusilis maintained and extended Hittite control over western Asia Minor, and his victories in the far west are commemorated in various surviving documents. The list of Hittite allies at the battle of Kadesh “mentions several peoples who all ... are hitherto already familiar and recognisable from the Hittite imperial records as being the names of peoples of Western and Central Anatolia.” (R.D. Barnett “The Sea Peoples: Anatolians at the Battle of Qadesh” in CAH Vol.2 part 2 (3rd ed.) p.360) The writer of these words, R.D. Barnett, offers the following identifications of these names:
Drdny = Dardanoi (Homeric name for Trojans).
Ms = Mysia (a region of Asia Minor).
Pds = Pitassa (either Pedasa, near Miletus, or Pedasos, in the Troad).
Krks = Karkisa (Caria).
Lk = Lukka (Lycia).
If these identifications are broadly correct, and virtually no authority denies it, then the Hittites were at that time in control of most of western Asia Minor.
As part of his policy to strengthen Lydian control over Asia Minor, Herodotus tells us that Alyattes attacked the Greek port of Miletus, continuing a war initiated by his father Sadyattes. (Herodotus, i, 17) By our reckoning Sadyattes must of course be the same as Hattusilis’ father Mursilis, and we must expect this king to be involved in military action on the Aegean coast. Sure enough, Hittite records tell us that Mursilis attacked and conquered a city on the Aegean coast named Millawanda (generally agreed to be Miletus), a settlement which had been the property of the king of Ahhiyawa (generally agreed to be Achaea - ie. Greece). From the records of Mursilis we find that the king of Ahhiyawa at this time was called Antarawas, a name that has been identified with the Greek Andreus. Twelve years later he names another king of Ahhiyawa, this time Tawalagawas, who is also known as “the Ayawalawas”. This has been interpreted as Eteocles the Aeolian. (A. R. Burn, Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks (London, 1930) p. 121)
Yet these clear references to Greek settlements in Hittite documents of supposedly the 13th century BC. have caused the utmost embarrassment to scholars, since the Ionic and Aeolian colonies are not dated by anyone earlier than the 10th century BC. But if we are actually in the 6th century BC., there is no problem, and Greek settlements, as well as a Greek city of Miletus, are entirely to be expected.
During the time of Mursilis the province of Arzawa, the Lydian heartland, rebelled. Uhha-zitish, the rebel leader, was, we are told, defeated in a great battle, and pursued to the town of Apasa, identified with Ephesus. Mursilis followed him to Apasa, but Uhha-zitish had fled “across the sea”, no doubt to Greece.
Thus it would appear that during and directly preceding the reign of Hattusilis the Hittites were busy consolidating their hold over the peoples of the Aegean coast, a situation which agrees precisely with what we know of the Lydian kingdom in the time of Alyattes and his immediate predecessors.
Herodotus mentions the fact that one of Alyattes’ greater successes was his conquest of Smyrna, (i, 16) and sure enough, a stela of Mursilis, Hattusilis’ father, stands at Karabel, just outside the city. (A. R. Burn, op cit. pp. 134-5)
In the end, we are told, Alyattes failed to conquer Miletus, which would explain why Hattusilis makes no mention of a successful war against Millawanda. He recalls with pride however his successful fifteen-year war against the Gasga (whom I equate with the Scythians – see my Empire of Thebes, 2006), a fact which recalls Alyattes’ achievement of driving the Cimmerians out of Asia. (Herodotus, i, 16)
Alyattes, we have seen, was also involved in prolonged warfare on his eastern front against the Medes. Peace was however briefly restored in this region when a major battle was interrupted by an eclipse.
One final point. The name written in the cuneiform of Boghaz-koi as Hattusilis is composed of two elements; Hattus-ili. Since vowels are conjectural and the order in which cuneiform syllables should be read by no means always certain, the same word could be written as Ali-hattus. In short, Hattusilis and Alyattes (Greek Aluattes) are the same name.
Thus Egypt’s link with Lydian and Classical history. But the repositioning of Egypt’s Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties in the seventh and sixth centuries causes profound problems for Biblical history. If we agree with Velikovsky that the Eighteenth Dynasty was contemporary with the Early Monarchy of Israel, this means that the Early Monarchy must likewise be brought into the seventh and sixth centuries. If Hatshepsut, of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, really was the Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon in Jerusalem, we cannot bring that same queen into the seventh century and leave Solomon in the tenth. Clearly Solomon must then also have lived in the seventh century!
How, the reader might ask, can Hebrew chronology be recalibrated in such a way? Is it not true that Hebrew history is well documented at least as far back as the time of David? Is it not accurately aligned, for example, with the histories of Babylonia and Assyria? How then are we to remove two and a half centuries from the span of that same history?
This is a problem I have examined in great detail in two of the Ages in Alignment books, most particularly in Empire of Thebes and Ramessides, Medes and Persians. There it is shown that Hebrew history is not aligned accurately to that of the Classical world, and that a “phantom time period” of over two centuries has been inserted into the Biblical timescale. The two phantom centuries are in fact located in the second half of the Persian Empire and the first century of the Seleucid epoch, a period of more than two centuries that in terms of Hebrew history is a complete blank. Between the time of Ezra, and the Book of his name, and the period of the Maccabees (circa 160 BC), Jewish history is totally silent: The Jews, greatest of record-keepers, apparently left not a single historical document to cover this enormous stretch of time. Yet things get even worse when we realize that archaeology has been no more successful at filling the gap. Between the middle of the Persian Age and the middle of the Seleucid archaeologists have found almost nothing in the land of Israel.
What is the explanation?
The explanation is straightforward; but it requires an imaginative leap in order to be successfully digested. The simple fact is, no three-century gap exists between Ezra and the Maccabees: one follows the other directly. And the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings who come before Ezra are Persian kings under the guise of Mesopotamians. Ezra therefore was active around 260 BC rather than 450 BC, and the king Nebuchadrezzar who took the Jews captive to Babylon shortly before his time was none other than the Persian king Artaxerxes III. In the same way, all the Hebrew kings who interacted with these Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian rulers must be brought forward in the timescale by two centuries. King Zedekiah of Judah, blinded and deported by Nebuchadrezzar, suffered that fate not in 570 BC, but around 340 BC. The prophets Elijah and Elisha, along with the Hebrew kings with whom they were contemporary, lived and worked in the late seventh century, not in the late ninth; and Solomon, who welcomed the Queen of Sheba to Jerusalem, did so around 680 BC, not 930 BC.
 
Last modified on Monday, 09 May 2011 12:29

....

Taken from: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/13-hattusilis-king-of-lydia.html

Monday, October 7, 2013

The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation


 
 
[The AMAIC would argue more for Western appropriation of Middle Eastern,
rather than Oriental Chinese, with the latter, too, being something of a beneficiary] 



http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/2.2/br_weston.html

Book Review


Hobson, John M. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge University Press, 2004). 376 pp, $29.99.

In The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, John M. Hobson has written a provocative work in keeping with the irreverent tradition of his great-grandfather, the well-known British economist and journalist John A. Hobson (1858-1940). The elder Hobson, a highly controversial figure in his day whose work has gained much respect since his death, pioneered economic theories later developed by John Maynard Keynes. In addition, his 1902 study Imperialism, where he traced the origins of imperialism to capitalism, anticipated ideas typically identified with the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin. In The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation John M. Hobson builds on the by-now plentiful work by scholars who have studied the contributions of non-Western societies to the making of the modern world. He presents a polemical historical narrative that turns conventional thinking on its head by making the following argument: the rise of the West to global dominance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is best understood as an instance of late development, dependent on extensive borrowing from the non-Western world, rather than as an instance of autonomous, internally-generated transformation. 1
There is hardly any original research presented in The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Instead, Hobson, who is Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield, makes his case by piecing together scholarly findings from a wide range of historical sub-fields. Anyone seeking titles related to the theme of world history would be well advised to consult Hobson's footnotes (unfortunately, the book does not contain a bibliography). Hobson's contribution therefore does not lay in the presentation of new knowledge but instead in the offering of a compelling, synthetic historiographical essay that challenges readers to rethink historical ideas that have achieved virtual orthodox standing among scholars and lay people alike. 2
Although his book is in places dense (and repetitive), Hobson's argument is straightforward and simple to grasp. He contends that Western Europeans did not invent the modern capitalist world wholesale beginning with the Renaissance, and that globalization did not begin in 1500. Indeed, Hobson argues that such ideas are simply powerful "myths" that have been perpetuated by Eurocentric thinkers. By contrast, he argues that well before 1500 other societies—primarily Chinese and Middle Eastern, and to a lesser extent African—pioneered virtually all of the major innovations that, combined, make up the foundations of the modern world order usually credited to the West. These innovations range from technological inventions to political and economic ones, and the main line of Hobson's argument is that absent the diffusion of non-Western ideas and practices into Europe the Western part of that "continent" would not have been positioned to take off in the early modern and modern periods. 3
Hobson first discusses what he terms "oriental globalisation," a dramatic, transformative process that began with the advent of Islam in the seventh century and eventually linked a series of great empires (the Tang, Ummayad/Abbasid, and Fatimid) into the largest and most culturally and economically interconnected network of advanced societies in world history to date. Key here is Hobson's argument that Islam, far from being a regressive religion that blocked the development of capitalist institutions, in fact promoted such development owing to the Koran's emphasis on the importance of investment as well as to Muslim society's general acceptance of the important social and economic role played by merchants. These characteristics prompted Muslims to spread outward in all directions in pursuit of trade, thereby making the Middle East the most advanced and cosmopolitan region of the globe and what Hobson calls the "Bridge of the World." 4
According to Hobson, China dominated the next phase of globalization. He asserts that Song China witnessed the "first great industrial miracle," which he calls the "single most important event in the history of global intensive power between 1100 and 1800." (p. 51) The transformation of Chinese society took place in many fields and included innovations in the iron and steel industry, the invention of paper money and the printing press, new agricultural methods, important leaps forward in navigational technologies, and a wide variety of military advances. Furthermore, Hobson argues that Chinese commerce was highly developed and that China did not withdraw from the global economy in the fifteenth century, as is often claimed, but in fact maintained its position as the most advanced society in the world into the nineteenth century. Hobson also argues that Japan and India played critically important and dynamic roles in the pre-nineteenth century world economy, and that none of the major players in the world economy before 1800 was European. 5
Given all this, Hobson recognizes that he must account for the West's rise to a position of global dominance beginning in the nineteenth century. While arguing that Western Europe could never have moved ahead had it not had the advantage of being a late developer that could integrate technologies developed elsewhere, Hobson points out that the West did display agency that played a critical role in its rise to power. However, the agency that the West displayed was mostly of a negative type, according to Hobson, who also stresses that the very idea of Europe itself only came into being within a global context in the middle ages owing to the challenge posed by Muslims, who forced Europeans to define themselves in contradistinction to the Islamic Middle East. Hobson expands on this idea of European self-understanding in chapters on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Here he posits that Europe's most important invention was in the realm of ideas, and consisted of racist thinking, a form of thought that divided the world's peoples and civilizations into hierarchies of development and relative value. Those peoples not deemed to be civilized were in need of Europe's civilizing help, which of course took the form of imperialism and colonialism in many parts of the world.6
For Hobson imperialism was not only a morally repugnant "moral vocation," it also helped account for the rise of the West by providing European powers—especially the British—with raw materials and markets for their goods. Hobson makes this point in the context of a broader discussion in which he sets out to demolish "the myth" of laissez-faire as the key to Great Britain's industrial revolution and economic take off. Once more inverting the standard line or argument, he refers to Great Britain as a despotic, interventionist state, and argues that the economic advantage over the rest of the world it achieved in the nineteenth century resulted from massive state spending, extensive state regulation of the economy, regressive taxation, and trade protectionism. More generally, Hobson contends that "without the plundering and exploitation of Eastern [and other] resources—land, labour, and markets—Europe would have failed to break through into industrial modernity." (p. 312)7
In conclusion, Hobson calls for an account of historical global development that is temporally relativist and that does not ascribe as permanent characteristics to Europe features that only came into being in the late modern and modern periods. Rather than viewing Europe's rise in the modern era as inevitable or wholly based on European developments, Hobson points out that "the East enjoyed the lead in both global intensive and extensive power between 500 and 1800 before the pendulum finally swung to the West in the nineteenth century." (p. 299) Only by abandoning a Eurocentric perspective, and by comprehending the many phases of the global economy and world system prior to the rise of modern Europe, as well as Europe's indebtedness to those earlier phases, does it become possible to recognize that the modern world is the product not merely of European advances, but of complex interactions across global regions and across time. For Hobson, modern Europe only makes sense and can only be understood in the context of a temporally broad, global history. 8
In the main, Hobson presents a coherent and challenging historical narrative that will force scholars interested in these questions to think in novel ways and to search in new places, and I am largely sympathetic to his project. Hobson is certainly not the first to point out that globalization is neither an exclusively modern nor a primarily Western-driven phenomenon, but he has combined that observation with an emphasis on the diffusion to Europe of non-Western technologies and attention to the role of racist thinking and imperialism in the making of the modern West that serves to place the most recent wave of globalization in a new light. 9
At the same time, I found Hobson's treatment of Europe to be highly selective. While he attributes agency to the West, the only agency he affords it is, as already stated, a negative kind, as though the rise of the modern West in relation to other societies can be explained by racism and imperialism alone. Perhaps Hobson believes that others have written enough about the positive reasons for the rise of the West in the modern era to feel that all that is left to him is to point out some of the problems with their accounts? In any case, his book would likely find a wider audience were he to devote at least as much time and energy to explaining the wide range of values and intellectual forces that combined to create the modern West as he does to the subjects of racism and imperialism. Hobson is not wrong to emphasize those subjects; however, in reading him I felt that his desire to rebut Eurocentric scholarship (and scholars) perhaps overwhelmed his ability to write a fully balanced account.10
Timothy Weston
University of Colorado, Boulder


From: http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Eastern_Origins_of_Western_Civilisat.html?id=KQN85hrJyT4C&redir_esc=y


John M. Hobson
Cambridge University Press, 03/06/2004 - History - 376 pages
 
This book challenges the ethnocentric bias of mainstream accounts of the 'Rise of the West'. John Hobson argues that these accounts assume that Europeans have pioneered their own development, and that the East has been a passive by-stander. In contrast Hobson describes the rise of what he calls the 'Oriental West'. He argues that Europe first assimilated many Eastern inventions, and then appropriated Eastern resources through imperialism. Hobson's book thus propels the hitherto marginalised Eastern peoples to the forefront of the story of progressive world history.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

"… free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato." (Tertullian: De praescriptione, vii).



Of the “three areas of particular fascination for the AMAIC regarding philosophy” as outlined in the previous MATRIX, namely:
  1. The Philosophy of Jesus Christ - restoring Christian philosophy to its biblical roots, with Jesus Christ, Wisdom Incarnate, as the focal point. ….
  1. A Re-orientation of the History of Ancient Philosophy. This actually pre-supposes 1. and needs to be viewed in parallel fashion to the way that the ancient Scriptures pre-figure Jesus the Word, but are also brought to perfection in Him.
  1. The Philosophy of Modern Science. Whilst the real world (physis) was still generally the object of philosophical study for the ancients, modern scientists and philosophers have largely shifted the emphasis on to law and convention (nomos).
it will be 2. A Re-orientation of the History of Ancient Philosophy that will be discussed at length this time round. But this will be done largely in the Supplement attached to this MATRIX. Some have not found very convincing our earlier attempts to Hebraïse what our western culture has handed on to us as Greek wisdom (sophia). Thus a reader has written:

Hi Damien,

That email from Hugh [Owen] didn’t seem to contain anything you wouldn’t have heard of already so I assume you’ll have no trouble responding. I’d be interested in your answer even if no one else is.

Well thanks for that clarification on Sirach [“Was Sirach in the King’s Blazing Fiery Furnace?” See our: http://bookofesther-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/was-sirach-in-kings-blazing-fiery.html]. But you’ll still need solid evidence to back up the claim.

I didn’t find the other ones on Aristotle etc very convincing. It seems more like speculation.
….

Editor’s Comment: Those educated according to the western stream, myself included, have grown up inculcated with a certain rigorous mindsight on matters of philosophical influences.
It is the conviction that our philosophical roots are profoundly embedded in Greek thought. That our Christian philosophy, as perfected by the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, was heavily reliant upon the supposedly Macedonian Greek genius, Aristotle, with enormous contribution also from Socrates and Plato.
The other profound influence upon Thomism was, of course, the celebrated Doctor of the Church, Saint Augustine of Hippo, who was very much again of the Platonic mould.
This is the received wisdom.
So, naturally, when someone comes along and begins to question the basis of this whole edifice, he will at best be regarded as ‘not very convincing’, and at worst, as a complete nut.
At the risk of acquiring such a reputation, essentially the new line that is being taken by the AMAIC (but it is not so new because it was already glimpsed by the Church Fathers) is that:

With ‘salvation being of the Jews’ (John 4:22), so, too, was genuine culture and civilisation ‘of the Jews’, (this term to be taken as covering also Hebrews/Israelites). And especially was philosophy ‘of the Jews’, arising as it did from Hebrew wisdom (or hokmah).
Jesus Christ, “the Metaphysician par excellence” (St. Bonaventure), was the very Alpha and the Omega of this God-given wisdom, of our Christian philosophy.
The Greek ‘wisdom’ (sophia, from which we get the term, philosophy) was something of a third phase removed, watered down version of the original. Quite beautiful and inspired insofar as it had managed to maintain the original pure doctrine of the Hebrews, it was, for the most part, however, a horrible distortion of it, owing to the viciously pagan environment from which it re-emerged now so corrupted. It sorely needed a Thomistic purification to get it back nearer to the biblical original. Hence we would hasten to embrace, as our own, Tertullian’s plea:

"free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato." (De praescriptione, vii).
And Numenius of Apamea also made a strong point when he exclaimed:
“What is Plato, but Moses speaking in Attic Greek?”

But we take it even a step further than the Fathers insofar as we would re-identify the major, supposedly ‘Greek’, thinkers as biblical Hebrews (see Supplement below).

Nor is it only Hebrew philosophy that has been appropriated by the Greeks - and the Egyptians and Mesopotamians before them (there are plenty of articles showing Plato’s dependence on Egypt, for instance). So much of the Bible has found its way, quite distorted, into Greek mythology. The discovery of such a fact tends to be made naturally by those whose education has generously included both Western and ancient Near Eastern thought, such as Michael Astour with his famous Hellenosemitica; the clever professor Cyrus Gordon, keen solver of ancient riddles; and so on. Our good friend John R. Salverda, likewise, has a great knack for resurrecting the biblical stories out of their murky graves in Greek mythology. See e.g. his “Medusa” http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/medusa.html but also his many other articles at this particular AMAIC site.
Anyway, all of this spelled out in far more detail in the Supplement to this MATRIX:

Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy.
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Mount Zion, true pole of the earth …”.
Psalm 48:2
“I will rouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece”.
Zechariah 9:13
Tertullian: "free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato."
(De praescriptione, vii).
This last saying, by Tertullian, will become as something of a golden thread for this article, though not properly according to the context of Tertullian, but according to the context of our AMAIC historical revisions.
For, as one will read as the description of our site,

“Much of Western culture, mythology and religion has been appropriated from the cultures of the Fertile Crescent region, especially from the Hebrews (Jews)”.
This is a companion to our site,

whose description is the same, but with reference to Far Eastern culture.
Now this description, with its application to the west, basically encapsulates the phenomenon that is the history of ancient philosophy, that has conventionally been presented to us as being entirely Greco-Roman (Ionian-Italian), but which I intend to argue was actually Hebrew (Israelite/Jewish) and biblical.
Certainly the Fathers of the Church appreciated at least the seminal impact that the Hebrews had had upon Greco-Roman thinking, though without their having taken the extra step that I intend to take in this article, of actually recognising the most famous early western (supposedly) philosophers as being originally Hebrew persons.
To give just a few examples from the Fathers and the early eastern and western legends:
“According to Clement [of Alexandria], Plato plagiarized revelation from the Hebrews; this gave the Athenian's highest ideas a flavor of divine authority in the estimation of Clement”. (http://www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm).
“… Aristoxenus in his book the Life of Pythagoras, as well as Aristarchus and Theopompus say that [Pythagoras] came from Tyre, Neanthes from Syria or Tyre, so the majority agree that Pythagoras was of barbarian origin (Strom. I 62, 2-3).
(http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciAfon.htm)
Clement of Alexandria even believed that Sirach had influenced the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus (Strom. 2.5; Bright 1999:1064).
(http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd)
Tertullian: "… free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato." (De praescriptione, vii).

Eusebius of Caesarea believed that Plato had been enlightened by God and was in agreement with Moses. (http://www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm)
Aristobulus was among many philosophers of his day who argued that the essentials of Greek philosophy and metaphysics were derived from Jewish sources. Philosopher Numenius of Apamea echoes this position in his well known statement "What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?" (1.150.4)
Aristobulus maintained, 150 years earlier than Philo, that not only the oldest Grecian poets, Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, etc., but also the most celebrated Greek thinkers, especially Plato, had acquired most of their wisdom from Jewish sages and ancient Hebrew texts (Gfrorer i. p. 308, also ii. 111-118) (Eusebius citing Aristobulus and Numenius Ev ix. 6, xi. 10).
The Arabic-Christian legends identify [the biblical] Baruch with the eastern sage, Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him.
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2562-baruch)
Saint Ambrose (Ep. 34) “suggested that Plato was educated in Hebraic letters in Egypt by Jeremiah”.
Bahá'u'lláh states that the Greek philosopher Empedocles "was a contemporary" of King David, "while Pythagoras lived in the days of Solomon" (Cole, p. 31; Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, 145).
(http://www.holy-writings.com/?a=SHOWTEXT&d=%2F%2Fen%2FBahai+Faith)
Saint Jerome saw similarities between the Book of Tobit and Homer’s The Odyssey. “Martin Luther likewise observed similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy … but one is even more impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a work of Greek tragedy—the Antigone of Sophocles”.
(http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f#ixzz2f1euwlrb)

Some of these situations (e.g. Sirach influencing Heraclitus - thought to be centuries before Sirach - and Plato meeting Jeremiah, who presumably lived about a century and a half before Plato) are chronologically impossible, of course, in the present context of ancient history. However, in my revised scheme of historical philosophy, they may not necessarily be.
Sirach is still yet, I believe, to be firmly dated.
In this article I shall take four of the key early, supposedly “Ionian” Greek (or Sicilian), philosophers of antiquity, Thales, Heraclitus and Pythagoras (Ionian), and Empedocles (Sicilian Greek), all prior to Socrates (hence ‘pre-Socratics’), and reveal what I believe to be their biblical prototype - of whom I claim these four were merely ghostly replicas - chronologically, ethnically and geographically misplaced.
Thales is most important as presumably having begun it all. According to Bertrand Russell, "Western philosophy begins with Thales."….
And we read at: (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/thales-of-miletus.html):
Thales of Miletus (c. 624 BCE – c. 546 BCE) was an ancient (pre-Socratic) Greek philosopher who is often considered the first philosopher and the father of Western philosophy. His approach to philosophical questions of course cannot compare to modern or even later Greek philosophers, however, he is the first known person to use natural explanations for natural phenomena rather than turning to supernatural world and his example was followed by other Greek thinkers who would give rise to philosophy both as a discipline and science.
Heraclitus is considered by some to have been the founder of metaphysics.
Thus (http://philoctetes.free.fr/heraclitus.htm):
Heraclitus is in a real sense the founder of metaphysics.
Starting from the physical standpoint of the Ionian physicists, he accepted their general idea of the unity of nature, but entirely denied their theory of being. The fundamental uniform fact in nature is constant change (πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει); everything both is and is not at the same time. He thus arrives at the principle of Relativity; harmony and unity consist in diversity and multiplicity. The senses are "bad witnesses" (κακοὶ μάρτυρες); only the wise man can obtain knowledge.
Pythagoras was thought to be the one who coined the term ‘philosopher’.
Thus (http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta15.htm):
This most famous philosopher was born sometime between 600 and 590 B.C., and the length of his life has been estimated at nearly one hundred years. …. Pythagoras was said to have been the first man to call himself a philosopher; in fact, the world is indebted to him for the word philosopher. Before that time the wise men had called themselves sages, which was interpreted to mean those who know. Pythagoras was more modest. He coined the word philosopher, which he defined as one who is attempting to find out.
Empedocles was said to have first named the four elements (earth, air, fire and water).
Thus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles):
Empedocles … Greek: Ἐμπεδοκλῆς; Empedoklēs; Ancient Greek …c. 490–430 BC) was a Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. Empedocles' philosophy is best known for being the originator of the cosmogenic theory of the four Classical elements.
Thus these were four very significant individuals in the received history of early philosophy!
Yet historians admit to knowing so little about them. That is apparent from these quotes, respectively, (mainly) from the above sites:
Thales: “Not much is known about the philosopher’s early life, not even his exact dates of birth and death”.
Heraclitus: “Little is known about his early life and education, but he regarded himself as self-taught and a pioneer of wisdom”.
Pythagoras: “The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Pythagoras must have been one of the world’s greatest persons, but he wrote nothing, and it is hard to say how much of the doctrine we know as Pythagorean is due to the founder of the society and how much is later development. It is also hard to say how much of what we are told about the life of Pythagoras is trustworthy; for a mass of legend gathered around his name at an early date”. (Taken from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/pythagor/)
Empedocles: “Very little is known about his life”.

Given these stark admissions, it would not be surprising that the original version of each of these sages could have been lost in the mists of obscurity.
My purpose in this article will be to try to restore the original historical character in relation to these important four: Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Empedocles.
{l shall be leaving aside at this stage the more important ‘Socratics’, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, whose true identities will really need to be established in the future}.
Thereby I hope to uncover the original artisans of wisdom, giving the precedence to Hebrew Hokmah (Wisdom) over Greek Sophia.

Why is it so important to “free Jerusalem from Athens”,
to borrow Tertullian’s phrase?
 
Firstly, because (my belief) the four aforementioned great philosophical sages were Hebrews rather than Greeks.
And, secondly, because genuine wisdom thinking and writings could not have been generated by a thing so corrupt and perverse as pagan Greco-Roman culture. To give just one potent example of its highly distorted nature, the shameful proclivities of Socrates himself
(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/greek_homos.htm):
…. Philosophy was another area where the acceptance of homosexuality was obvious, and seemed to be representative of the thoughts of many people (or at least male thought) of the time. Most of the early philosophers seemed to thoroughly understand and discuss the actions of pederasty and homosexuality, and Socrates … even described himself as being “experienced in the pursuit of men.” According to the dialogues of Plato – a student of Socrates - pederasty and homosexuality were a part of everyday life, at least for aristocrats.
Two of Plato’ s works, The Phaedrus and The Symposium, paint a brilliant picture of what the attitude toward pederasty was at the time. In the opening pages of The Phaedrus, Phaedrus and Socrates are discussing a speech that Lysias – a popular orator of the day - has written; a speech that was “… designed to win the favor of a handsome boy….” Socrates seems to understand why one would write a speech on this subject, and even states that man “cannot have a less desirable protector or companion than the man who is in love with him.” The Symposium goes into even greater detail about pederasty.
The setting is a symposium – a type of dinner party that only included males as guests, and had entertainment, wine, and discussion of politics and philosophy – in which several men are gathered and all give speeches about why a love of boys is a good thing. Phaedrus - the first to give his speech - states, For I can’t say that there is a greater blessing right from boyhood than a good lover or a greater blessing for a lover than a darling [young boy]. What people who intend to lead their lives in a noble and beautiful manner need is not provided by family, public honors, wealth, or anything else, so well as by love. Pausanias - the second speaker - adds even more to this argument when he states Aphrodite only inspires love among men for young boys, and not women. Those inspired by Aphrodite are naturally drawn to the male because he is a stronger and more intelligent creature.
Socrates also comments on the importance of pederasty in his own life. He says, “My love for this fellow [Agathon- another member of the party who is a beautiful young boy] is not an insignificant affair.” Yet another member of the party, Alcibiades, also loves Agathon and tries to discredit Socrates when he says, “… Socrates is lovingly fixated on beautiful young men, is always around them – in a daze….” ….
[End of quote]
Gross impurity kills wisdom stone dead!
Obviously, a genuine Christian (or perennial) philosophy cannot properly be based upon (arise out of) such corrupt pagan thinking and ethics, no matter how much the latter might have been enlightened by biblical wisdom. Hence, my purpose of re-orientating the philosophia perennis back in line with Hebrew wisdom (hokmah), to Zion.
The question of who really were the original three sages who inspired the great philosophical triumvirate of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, is a most fascinating one. And it is one that we hope to be able to answer with conviction in due course. As the reader commented (see MATRIX, p. 8), our previous effort in this direction was not “very convincing. It seems more like speculation”. But it was merely a first tentative step out onto an entirely new path.
To achieve this satisfactorily should be made easier, at least chronologically, once we have secured the true identities of Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Empedocles, who apparently preceded the three ‘Socratics’ in time.
Now, here is how I suspect our four pre-Socratics stand in relation to real history (for I have already done some previous work on this very subject):
Thales is, as I have argued in various articles now, the biblical Joseph of the Book of Genesis. See e.g. Joseph as Thales: Not an "Hellenic Gotterdamerung" but Israelite Wisdom. http://www.academia.edu/3690014/Joseph_as_Thales_Not_an_Hellenic_Gotterdamerung_but_Israelite_Wisdom His name ‘Thales” apparently derives from the sage Ptah-hotep in Egypt, who, like Joseph, lived to be 110 years of age, and who is thought to have inspired some of the biblical Proverbs. Joseph (Ptah-hotep) is likewise the great Imhotep, who even became deified and ‘sanctified’, later, in Ptolemaïc times.
Traditions are completely unreliable and “conflicting” in regard to Greek versions of Thales
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales):
Diogenes Laertius states that ("according to Herodotus and Douris and Democritus") Thales' parents were Examyes and Cleobuline, then traces the family line back to Cadmus, a prince of Tyre. Diogenes then delivers conflicting reports: one that Thales married and either fathered a son (Cybisthus or Cybisthon) or adopted his nephew of the same name; the second that he never married, telling his mother as a young man that it was too early to marry, and as an older man that it was too late. Plutarch had earlier told this version: Solon visited Thales and asked him why he remained single; Thales answered that he did not like the idea of having to worry about children. Nevertheless, several years later, anxious for family, he adopted his nephew Cybisthus. …
Unfortunately there is a complete absence of primary evidence for Thales, for (http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=2318): “No writing of his has come down to us; we have no primary sources”.
It is even considered likely that he did not write anything at all. And this is where the problem lies. The real existence of Thales as an Ionian Greek of the C6th BC is wide open to doubt. By the time of the Greeks, the original sage, the biblical Joseph (Ptah-hotep of Egypt) - as I believe - had mythologically drifted from Palestine to Ionia, from being a Hebrew to an Ionian Greek, and had been slid down the centuries to the tune of more than a millennium.
As I wrote (Joseph as Thales):
…. To Thales is attributed a prediction in astronomy that was quite impossible for an Ionian Greek - or anyone else - to have estimated so precisely in the C6th BC. He is said to have predicted a solar eclipse that occurred on 28 May 585 BC during a battle between Cyaxares the Mede and Alyattes of Lydia …. This supposed incident has an especial appeal to the modern rationalist mind because it - thought to have been achieved by a Greek, and 'marking the birthday of western science' - was therefore a triumph of the rational over the religious. According to Glouberman, for instance, it was "… a Hellenic Götterdämerung, the demise of an earlier mode of thought" …. Oh really? Well, it never actually happened. O. Neugebauer …, astronomer and orientalist, has completely knocked on the head any idea that Thales could possibly have foretold such an eclipse.
Heraclitus, who Saint Clement of Alexandria thought had been influenced by the biblical Sirach (i.e. Ecclesiasticus), may even originally have been this very Sirach. Thus I wrote (http://historyancientphilsophy.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/amaic-philosophy-areas-of-special-interest/)
Here occurs that same sort of chronological ‘difficulty’ (in a textbook context) with a Father of the Church as also in the case of Saint Ambrose’s conjecture (in De philosophia) that Plato had met Jeremiah in Egypt. Whilst, chronologically, this is an extraordinary statement by Saint Clement, considering that Sirach would be located centuries after Heraclitus, the presumed chronological problem may actually be due to the ignorance of the real identity of the supposedly ‘Greek’ philosopher. What if Heraclitus, whose special element was fire, were in fact the same person as the Hebrew Sirach (also known as “Siracides”, hence Heraclitus?), who wrote of fire (Sirach 51:3, 4): “You liberated me … from the stifling heat which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled …”. The ancient concept of Divine Wisdom, as written of by Sirach, was supposedly absorbed by Heraclitus, who, I think, may have been but a pale Greek version of the biblical scribe.
Pythagoras, based on traditions of the great antiquity of his doctrines; the possibility that he may even have hailed from Syria (Tyre) and was hence a barbarian (that is, a non-Greek); his being circumcised; his concerns with dietary laws; his abstention from illicit sex; and the very Egyptian looking first syllable in his name, Pyth (= Ptah?); was probably once again the great Ptah-hotep, or Imhotep, of Egypt, who I am saying was the biblical Joseph.
We have already considered the lack of sure knowledge about him. Here is another sample (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/):
Pythagoras … spent his early years on the island of Samos, off the coast of modern Turkey. At the age of forty, however, he emigrated to the city of Croton in southern Italy and most of his philosophical activity occurred there. Pythagoras wrote nothing, nor were there any detailed accounts of his thought written by contemporaries. By the first centuries [BC], moreover, it became fashionable to present Pythagoras in a largely unhistorical fashion as a semi-divine figure, who originated all that was true in the Greek philosophical tradition, including many of Plato's and Aristotle's mature ideas. A number of treatises were forged in the name of Pythagoras and other Pythagoreans in order to support this view.
Likewise, did the genius Imhotep (Joseph) become “a semi-divine figure”.
(http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ho-Jo/Imhotep.html):
Imhotep was an ancient Egyptian genius who achieved great success in a wide variety of fields. Inventor of the pyramid, author of ancient wisdom, architect, high priest, physician, astronomer, and writer, Imhotep's many talents and vast acquired knowledge had such an effect on the Egyptian people that he became one of only a handful of individuals of nonroyal birth to be deified, or promoted to the status of a god.
Imhotep is sometimes referred to as “the Egyptian god of medicine and healing”. (http://www.landofpyramids.org/imhotep.htm). It is not surprising to find, then, that (http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/~johnt/1004ICT/lectures/lecture02/Sleepwalkers-pp26-42.html): “The Pythagoreans were, among other things, healers; we are told that 'they used medicine to purge the body, and music to purge the soul'.”
Here are some relevant views of Pythagoras that might be reminiscent of the biblical Joseph (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciAfon.htm):
Clement of Alexandria … is not only a good source of the Pythagorean doctrines, which enhance our knowledge of the Pythagorean tradition.
….

What did Clement know about Pythagoras and the Pythagorean Tradition?
Pythagoras in Clement's eyes was an ancient sage and religious reformer, a God-inspired transmitter of the spiritual tradition, which itself ascends to the most antique times.

Pythagoras from Samos, - says Clement, - was a son of Mnesiarchus, as Hippobotus says. But Aristoxenus in his book the Life of Pythagoras, as well as Aristarchus and Theopompus say that he came from Tyre, Neanthes from Syria or Tyre, so the majority agree that Pythagoras was of barbarian origin (Strom. I 62, 2-3).
He was a student of Pherecydes … and his floruit falls on the time of dictatorship of Polycrates, around the sixty-second Olympiad [ci. 532-529 BC]. …. But the real teacher of his was certain Sonchis, the highest prophet of the Egyptians. …. Pythagoras traveled a lot and even underwent circumcision in order to enter in the Egyptian shrines to learn their philosophy.
….
Clement is inclined to think that Pythagoras composed some writings himself, but gave them out as if they contained ancient wisdom, revealed to him.
….
Pythagoras in no means was a mere transmitter, he himself was a sage, prophet and the founder of a philosophic school: The great Pythagoras applied himself ceaselessly to acquiring knowledge of the future (Strom. I 133, 2). …. Imagine, now, that we are students at Clement's Catechetical School and listen to his lectures. What shall we learn about Pythagoras (given that Clement is the only source of our knowledge)?
Clement would tell us that Pythagoras was a perfect example of righteousness ….
Pythagoras instructed to clean one's body and soul before entering the road by means of strictly drawn dietary regulations. …. One of the reasons for this is that the burden of food prevents soul from 'rising to higher levels of reality' …. Maintaining self-control and a right balance in everything is therefore absolutely necessary for everybody entering the path of knowledge:
'A false balance (zuga) do/lia) is an abomination in the Lord's eye, but a just weight is acceptable to him.' (Prov. 11.1) It is on the basis of this that Pythagoras warns people 'Step not over a balance (zugo)n mh) u(perbai/nein)'. ….
Gross impurity kills wisdom stone dead!
Saint Clement continues:
It is said that the Pythagoreans abstain from sex. [Joseph and the wife of Potiphar?] My own view, on the contrary, is that they married to produce children, and kept sexual pleasure under control thereafter. …. This is why they place a mystic on eating beans, not because they lead to belching, indigestion, and bad dreams, or because a bean has the shape of a human head, as in the line To eat beans is like eating your parents' heads (Orphica, fr. 291 Kern), - but rather because eating beans produces sterility in women. …. Pythagoras advised us to take more pleasure in the Muses than in the Sirens, teaching the practice of all form of wisdom without pleasure. ….
The goal of the Pythagoreans consists therefor not in abstaining from doing certain important things, but rather in practicing of abstinentia from harmful and useless things in order to attain to a better performance in those which are really vital. As in the case with marriage (above), Clement generally disagrees with those who put too much force on self-restriction. He has a good reason for doing this, as we shall see later whilst analyzing Clement's critique of some Gnostic ideas that are closely connected with the Pythagorean problematic. Pythagorean abstinentia should be based on reason and judgment rather than tradition or a rite. Koinwni/a kai) sugge/neia unites not only all mankind, but also all living beings with the gods. …. This alone is a sufficient reason for abstinence from flesh meat. ….
Empedocles, though considered to have lived in the C5th BC and to have nonetheless been the first to have named the four elements, was lagging way behind the Book of Genesis in this supposed achievement of his.
Thus we read at (http://revelationorbust.com/wordpress/?p=376#more-376):
Genesis 1:10
….
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃
wayiqra – elohim – layyabbashah – erets ulemiqweh – hammayim – qara – yammim – wayyareh – elohim – ki+tov
and (he) called – God – to the dry ground – earth and to collection – the waters – (he) called – seas – and (he) saw – God – for+good
The construction of this verse is familiar. See in particular this post on Genesis 1:4 regarding “seeing.”
Genesis 1:10 marks the last time in the creation narrative that God himself names things. Take a look at what he’s named: day and night (in 1:5), sky (in 1:8), earth and sea (here in 1:10). Are these meant to correspond to the four primal elements fire, air, earth, and water? Fire is perhaps a leap from day and night. But if the correspondence is intentional, God is shown to be the creator and fashioner of what was understood to be the substances from which everything else was formed until relatively recent history.
This is a pretty nifty observation, but it presents a small challenge to the historical-grammatical interpretation of Genesis 1.
The problem is that the four primal elements idea is normally attributed to a Greek philosopher by the name of Empedocles who lived in the 5th century B.C. – about 1,000 years after Moses and the traditional date for the recording of Genesis. The Wellhausen hypothesis posits later dates for Genesis but is still 400 years before Empedocles.
We show our Western bias however when we focus on the Greeks. The Egyptians actually had a similar concept …. The Egyptian idea was embodied in a group of deities called the Ogdoad, and the four primordial substances were darkness, air, the waters, and infinity/eternity.
All of this is to say that even from a purely secular standpoint it is not unreasonable to grant that the Greek primal elements concept existed in the Ancient Near East well before the Greeks. ….
[End of quote]
Love him or hate him, Sigmund Freud was well on the right track at least when he considered Empedocles to have been a ‘reincarnation of Moses’.
See: http://moseseditor.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/taken-from-httpbooks.html
I think Empedocles’ archetypal personage was indeed Moses. For instance:
(http://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/moses-magician.html): “… there arose in antiquity an interpretation of Moses as a scholar/magician in the classical mould of Pythagoras … and Empedocles”.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/gill/deu033.htm):
Deuteronomy 33:25: “Thy shoes shall be iron and brass”.
…. Either they should have such an abundance of these metals, that they could if they would have made their shoes of them; but that is not usual; though it is said of Empedocles (g) the philosopher, that he wore shoes of brass”. ….
Moses had to remove his sandals on the fiery mountain (Exodus 3:5): “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” From the following quote we learn about Empedocles’ sandal on the fiery mountain.
(http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2013/06/who-were-the-first-recreational-mountain-climbers.html)
Moses climbed Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments and ascended Mount Nebo (Jordan) to gaze on the land he would never reach. …. Empedocles, the ancient Greek philosopher, climbed the active volcano Mount Etna on Sicily and leaped into the flaming crater ….
According to legend, he intended to become an immortal god; the volcano ejected one of his sandals turned to bronze by the heat.
(http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4m3nb2jk&chunk.id=d0e5110)
“The character of Empedocles [Hölderlin’s The Death of Empedocles] is in some ways a synthesis of Moses and Aaron: his wisdom and mystical powers of leadership both separate him from the people and lead them to offer him the title of King. The contradiction in this dilemma, however, leads him to spurn the people for their lack of comprehension and ultimately to his own destruction—the plunge into the volcano rather than life in exile”.
How did all of this happen?
We well know that when a story is related to someone else and then passed on from one to another it soon becomes quite changed and different amongst even those living in close time and proximity. How much more (a fortiori) would change occur when incidents and teachings pertaining to ancient peoples were passed down through the centuries and also across the continents!
As I wrote in (http://brightmorningstar.blog.com/2011/09/14/jesus-as-a-jewish-philosopher/):
…. The Hebrew wisdom would have filtered through to the Greeks last, only after having passed through pagan Canaanite-Phoenicia (entrepôts such as Ugarit, Byblos and Tyre) in the west, or Babylon in the east, then on to the Ionian Greeks in the north, or south, to Alexandria, and lastly to the mainland Greeks. It later evolved into the more systematised form of philosophy that we know today, though not necessarily even then at the hands of Greeks. For example, the Maccabean Jewish priest, Aristobulus (2 Maccabees 1:10), was supposed to have written a book on philosophy, arguing, for the benefit of the Macedonian ‘Greeks’ – most notably king Ptolemy himself – “that the essentials of Greek philosophy and metaphysics were derived from Jewish sources. Aristobulus maintained that not only the oldest [supposedly] Grecian poets, Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, etc., but also the most celebrated Greek thinkers, especially Plato … had acquired most of their wisdom from Jewish sages and ancient Hebrew texts”.
….
We westerners have, in our education, been well and truly brainwashed with the notion of ‘Greek genius’:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/will-durant-the-story-of-philosophy-plato/
….
The subject of Persian or Babylonian influences had been a contentious one in the earlier part of the twentieth century. The subject currently continues to receive attention from several leading scholars, including Walter Burkert, and M.L. West. On the whole, however, the idea has yet to penetrate into mainstream circles, because of a xenophobia which insists on the unique “genius” of the Greeks. ….
Thus we get Pope Francis (probably actually reflecting the thought of his heavily westernized predecessor, Benedict XVI) in his encyclical, “Lumen Fidei”, attributing to Saint Augustine an absorption of Greek philosophy and Neoplatonism:
….
33. In the life of Saint Augustine we find a significant example of this process whereby reason, with its desire for truth and clarity, was integrated into the horizon of faith and thus gained new understanding. Augustine accepted the Greek philosophy of light, with its insistence on the importance of sight. His encounter with Neoplatonism introduced him to the paradigm of the light which, descending from on high to illumine all reality, is a symbol of God. Augustine thus came to appreciate God’s transcendence and discovered that all things have a certain transparency, that they can reflect God’s goodness. This realization liberated him from his earlier Manichaeism, which had led him to think that good and evil were in constant conflict, confused and intertwined. The realization that God is light provided Augustine with a new direction in life and enabled him to acknowledge his sinfulness and to turn towards the good.
….

For multiple examples of how the Greeks appropriated Hebrew and other Near Eastern and Mesopotamian culture, visit our Lost Cultural Foundations of Western Civilisation site. There one can read also the contributions of John R. Salverda such as:

Jerusalem’s History as Athenian Myth
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/taken-from-httpforums.html

Europa Lost
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/europe-is-named-after-descendant-of-ios.html

John R. Salverda’s Additions to Sisyphus as Joseph
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/john-r-salverdas-additions-to-sisyphus.html

Scandinavian Legends and the Book of Genesis
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/scandinavian-legends-and-book-of.html

Greek Sisyphus and the Patriarch Joseph
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/greek-sisyphus-and-patriarch-joseph.html

Salverda suggests idea of Amazons came from prophetess Miriam and her followers
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/salverda-suggests-idea-of-amazons-came.html

Pelops as King Ahab
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/pelops-as-king-ahab.html
….
and more.
All this to be considered, though, with the following disclaimer:
[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the details and identifications].
Conclusion

The Greeks tend to put a whole different slant on eastern thought.
In a hairdresser’s recently I was served by a young male who claimed to be from the city of Babylon, and a Greek (the owner) who listened intently to our conversation about Babylon. How the city has been damaged in recent wars and had much of its wonderful art destroyed.
“Art is the face of the people”, the Babylonian said ruefully.

He also asked:
“Do you know what ‘Babylon’ actually means?”
“Yes, ‘gate of God’.” [Bab-ilu]
“That’s right”.
Then the Greek proudly added his version.
“In Greece, ‘Babylonia’ means ‘to talk too much’.”

Therein, perhaps, lies our problem.