Pagan roots of the abrahamic traditions

[SirPalomides]

So digging into the “cause of causes” one might think it sounds Aristotelian, somehow related to Aristotle’s final cause. Well, sort of. This phrase appears in the Book of Causes which first appeared in Arabic and was attributed to Aristotle… but it’s mainly a translation/ adaptation of Proclus. This book of course was very popular and influential among Muslim and Jewish intellectuals, and, in its Latin translation, among Catholics. Anyway here is the relevant passage:

 

However, let us reiterate and say that the First Being is quiescent and is the cause of causes; and, if it gives being to all things, then it gives [being] to them after the mode of creation. However, the First Life gives life to those that are under it not after the mode of creation, but rather after the mode of a form. And similarly, Intelligence gives knowledge and the other things to those that are under it only after the mode of a form. 

[SirPalomides]

44 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

... but the concepts of kabalah are coming from the torah and tanach.  

 

Of course they are, it’s purely coincidental that someone only noticed these concepts in the Torah and Tanach in medieval France and Spain while smokin’ Proclus.

Edited December 2, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

However, let us reiterate and say that the First Being is quiescent and is the cause of causes; and, if it gives being to all things, then it gives [being] to them after the mode of creation. However, the First Life gives life to those that are under it not after the mode of creation, but rather after the mode of a form. And similarly, Intelligence gives knowledge and the other things to those that are under it only after the mode of a form. 

 

From the jewish perspective, this is heresy.  The one and only creator, is the one and only creator.  None other are "giving".

 

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

 

Of course they are, it’s purely coincidental that someone only noticed these concepts in the Torah and Tanach in medieval France and Spain while smokin’ Proclus.

 

That's an assumption.

 

Have you read hagigah in the talmud?  Maasei b'reishis and maasei mercavah predate the medieval period.  It's not written until later. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism#Early_Jewish_merkabah_mysticism

Edited December 2, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

Then the Kabbalists adopted heretical terminology to describe the Ein Sof and the manner of its emanation. 
 

Merkavah-Hekhalot texts are very cool… but not Kabbalah.

Edited December 2, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Then the Kabbalists adopted heretical terminology to describe the Ein Sof and the manner of its emanation.

 

It's more likely you have mistaken which terminology is actually being used.  

 

16 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Merkavah-Hekhalot texts are very cool… but not Kabbalah.

 

As I stated before, you don't seem to know what kabalah is.  It is literally making a mercavah.  That's what it is.  

[SirPalomides]

Funny that you say “literally” since, taken literally, the Merkavah-Hechalot texts are blasphemous from a Kabbalistic perspective. For the Kabbalists, as good neoplatonists, anthropomorphic presentations of God must be thoroughly reinterpreted, allegorized, analogized, etc

much like the episode where God shows Moses his back. And this brings us back to the esoteric hermeneutic developed by Greek philosophers.

[Daniel]

45 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

the Merkavah-Hechalot texts are blasphemous

 

That's because the actual teachings are not to be written down.

 

45 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

God shows Moses his back.

 

It doesn't say God's "back" in an anthropomorphic manner.  It says es-achahrai.

 

והסרתי את־כפי וראית את־אחרי ופני לא יראו׃

 

The anthropomorphisms are in poetry, visions, and dreams.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

That's because the actual teachings are not to be written down.

 

 

Exactly! Like esoteric hermeneutics, “we have a secret oral teaching, you wouldn’t have heard of it” is non-falsifiable and therefore an excellent way to account for ruptures in a tradition. 
 

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

It doesn't say God's "back" in an anthropomorphic manner.  It says es-achahrai.

 

והסרתי את־כפי וראית את־אחרי ופני לא יראו׃

Not only did rabbis read it anthropomorphically but went even further and said it was the tefillin knot on the back of his head, etc

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Exactly! Like esoteric hermeneutics, “we have a secret oral teaching, you wouldn’t have heard of it”

 

Not quite.  The jewish version is:  "there's an oral tradition, you've probably heard of it, but, it shouldn't be written down."  Then around 500 years later, it gets written down.  The ones who wrote it weren't supposed to write it down, they were rebels and likely held heretical beliefs already.   Because of this, the written texts which are studied by academics are a mix of the authentic original teachings and the heretical beliefs/practices which they had adopted.  The academics do not have access to the private one-on-one tutellage which happens behind closed doors, so, they are only able to judge based on what they have. 

 

Academics, also, are studying advanced topics lacking the required foundations:  Torah, Tanach, Talmud.  Kabalah is not intended for those who are not fluent in all three.  Lacking Torah, when one considers a singular source for reality it's natural to conclude there is a "logos" and/or a "demiurge" and/or "God is a mix of good and evil".  None of these are congruent with Torah.

 

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Not only did rabbis read it anthropomorphically but went even further and said it was the tefillin knot on the back of his head, etc

 

This is what is written.

 

״וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת כַּפִּי וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי״. אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶרְאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין.

 

Says Rav Chanah Bar Biznah, "Says Rabbi Shimon Chasidah: It teaches that HaKadosh-Baruch-Hu is showing to Moshe the tefilin's knot."

 

That's what's written.  The story that's told is that this is where Moses learned to tie the tefilin knot into a dalet/daleth.  Which makes sense if we get "mystical".

 

The parts about being on the back of the head are commentary added to the talmud.  Some focus, again, on רָאִיתָ, which is the same word used for a "vision".  But, the literal meaning of the "וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת כַּפִּי וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי"  can not be a hand and it can not be a back-side.  If it were literally a hand, it would be written HaYad, not Es-Kapaiy.  If it were literally a human-back-side, it would be written HaAchoraiy, not Es-Achoraiy.

 

Christians, naturally, are going to translate it and understand it as a human form because they're traditionally envisioning god in the flesh.  When reading the english translations from a Christian perspective, they will imagine a humanoid god.  The problem, ultimately is linguistic.  The word "Es" את, is extremely difficult to translate into english.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Daniel

[thelerner]

15 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If the story is going to be adapted to this thread, 

 

The story was from the actual rabbi who lived it and show cased good men of religion talking together.  

Your re-writing does the opposite.  

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

The story was from the actual rabbi who lived it and show cased good men of religion talking together.  

Your re-writing does the opposite.  

 

That's the point.   The story you brought is the opposite of what is happening in this thread.  This thread is the opposite of two individual independent traditions sharing similarities. 

 

This thread is pointing at someone else's religion and saying "You're copying from me."  Any similarity, no matter how small is conflated into influence.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

There is no Hellenic influence in Kabbalah—->Okay there are similarities but they are purely coincidental—> Okay these ideas arose in a time and place where Jewish intellectuals were reading tons of Greek philosophy but it’s still a coincidence—-> Okay, Kabbalist texts are borrowing Platonist language but those are written by heretics and the real stuff was never written down

 

The only thing missing from this chain of denial is Philo of Alexandria’s “Actually Plato learned everything from Moses”.

 

As for the idea that Gershom Scholem was insufficiently grounded in Judaism to understand Kabbalah… that’s funny.

[SirPalomides]

Also “copying” is a mischaracterization. It implies taking something from the outside, as if someone is being sneaky or cheating somehow. Not at all. Jews were integrated into Hellenistic culture for a long time and like the Christian fathers they were employing the Greek learning- together with distinct Jewish traditions- as their own.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

23 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

There is no Hellenic influence in Kabbalah—->Okay there are similarities but they are purely coincidental—> Okay these ideas arose in a time and place where Jewish intellectuals were reading tons of Greek philosophy but it’s still a coincidence—-> Okay, Kabbalist texts are borrowing Platonist language but those are written by heretics and the real stuff was never written down

 

The only thing missing from this chain of denial is Philo of Alexandria’s “Actually Plato learned everything from Moses”.

 

As for the idea that Gershom Scholem was insufficiently grounded in Judaism to understand Kabbalah… that’s funny.

 

10 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Also “copying” is a mischaracterization. It implies taking something from the outside, as if someone is being sneaky or cheating somehow. Not at all. Jews were integrated into Hellenistic culture for a long time and like the Christian fathers they were employing the Greek learning- together with distinct Jewish traditions- as their own.

 

This discussion has gotten woefully off track, at least you are back to the bottom of the tree where the roots and trunk merge.  I have watched this discussion, and have looked deeper into some points of interest, especially about the Elephantine settlement, where an apparent lacuna in Biblical history needs some investigation and explaining.  It cannot be dismissed because it was brought up by an "independent scholar", truth is truth no matter who has said it.  What is the truth in this matter.  Gmirkin puts it in one framework, what others can be reasonable proposed, and what are their implications and consequences to the history of the "Old Testament"?  That is what I want to know and examine.

 

ZYD

[Zhongyongdaoist]

A quick try at exposing some roots here:
 

19 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

So digging into the “cause of causes” one might think it sounds Aristotelian, somehow related to Aristotle’s final cause. Well, sort of. This phrase appears in the Book of Causes which first appeared in Arabic and was attributed to Aristotle… but it’s mainly a translation/ adaptation of Proclus.

 

Regarding the "cause of causes", while I don't recall Plato using the phrase, he does make quite clear in the Parmenides that the One is the ultimate cause of everything, which would including the causes.  I don't have time to go into more detail, but I have posted over and over again that in his dialogue Parmenides Plato gives an outline of metaphysics of the one

 

 

 

[SirPalomides]

Yes the Parmenides is crucial. I think people are hearing “Greek influence on Abrahamic faiths” and they think this means something compromising monotheism- it’s actually the opposite. The intense theology of God’s utter uniqueness, transcendence, and ineffability, to the point that even saying “God exists” is considered misleading- this comes from Platonists and their reading of the Parmenides on the One.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

A quick try at exposing some roots here:
 

19 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

So digging into the “cause of causes” one might think it sounds Aristotelian, somehow related to Aristotle’s final cause. Well, sort of. This phrase appears in the Book of Causes which first appeared in Arabic and was attributed to Aristotle… but it’s mainly a translation/ adaptation of Proclus.

 

Regarding the "cause of causes", while I don't recall Plato using the phrase, he does make quite clear in the Parmenides that the One is the ultimate cause of everything, which would including the causes.  I don't have time to go into more detail, but I have posted over and over again that, in his dialogue Parmenides, Plato gives an outline of metaphysics of the one, and this outline is the basis of:

 

Quote

... the metaphysical and mystical theories of the later Neoplatonists (notably Plotinus and later, Proclus), who saw in the Deductions the key to the hierarchical ontological structure of the universe.  (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Plato's Parmenides, emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

I wrote humorously about it here:

 

On 2/14/2012 at 7:01 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

On 2/13/2012 at 9:02 PM, Sinfest said:

Sinfest!

 

You seem to have the most humorous response, even if it is not original with you. Congratulations. There is only one problem. As the whole Platonic tradition from Plato's Parmenides, through the abiding, procession and return of Plotinus' interpretation of Plato's thought, up the dialectical ladder of Proclus' commentary on Plato's Parmenides and down the propositional ladder of his Elements of Theology, the Platonists have conclusively demonstrated that the one is eminently, if tediously, effable.  (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

Even the "ineffable one" has properties that can be deduced from aspects of itself as I posted here:

 

On 6/24/2016 at 11:35 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

On 6/24/2016 at 10:55 AM, ralis said:

Will any language accurately describe the underlying process? Meaning which takes the form of a verbal construct appears as culturally specific as opposed to a universal construct?

 

It worked in Greek and translates well into English, the whole modern tendency is to put it in mathematical form, Martin's essay being full of the technical symbols of propositional calculus and set theory.

 

Here is an example English paraphrase based on the first proposition about the One in Plato's Parmenides:

 

If the One is a Member of the set of those things that are example of themselves, it is singular and simple, being singular and simple it is not a member of the set of wholes with parts, and thus has no beginning middle or end, either in space or time . . .

 

This amounts to a propositional/set theoretical argument that the One "exists" outside of space and time, if and only if it is an example of itself.  Plato finishes this argument by allowing that the idea of something existing outside of space and time doesn't make "sense", which some take to mean he is rejecting it, but many don't think that the rejection is to be taken seriously.  I think there is a deeper rhetorical and pedagogical purpose at work in such a rejection, and it is a pointer to the unexamined concept "existence".  I am also quite aware of many issues related to this dialogue, but I don't have time to go into them, it took me years of reading and reflection to reach understanding that I have of these issues, I can hardly summarize it in a few posts on the Dao Bums.  Plotinian Platonism ("neo-Platonism") is in many ways an extended dialectical commentary on Plato's Parmenides.

 

The proof is worked out in more detail in the original.  All of which tends, to my mind at least, to render this assertion suspect:

 

On 11/29/2023 at 5:06 PM, Daniel said:

Have you read the Zohar, can you read aramaic?  Plato didn't come anywhere near these subjects.  (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

I have read the Zohar in English translation, it looks like you have not read much, if any, Plato in any language.

 

My reason for preferring Plato is that being based on its starting from first principles it leads to its conclusions through rigorous demonstration and demonstrates that so called "mysticism", at least in its Platonic form, is not irrational, but something that can be proved by reason, thus creating the possibility of a Rational Mysticism which be used to offered as a contrast to the mechanistic reductionism of modern materialism which is haunted by the ghost of quantum interconnectedness, which after decades of determined effort, still seems to be a haunting that cannot be exorcised.  Platonism also offers a good general model of Spiritual phenomena as I have emphasized in my many posts on Cornelius Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy.

 

This is all that I have time for now.

 

ZYD

[wandelaar]

Quote

It worked in Greek and translates well into English, the whole modern tendency is to put it in mathematical form, Martin's essay being full of the technical symbols of propositional calculus and set theory.

 

Martin's essay? Could you provide a link?

[Cobie]

.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cobie

[wandelaar]

Yes - this might be very interesting.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I'm glad this has stirred so much interest.  The whole book is interesting, and part of a series of books that, overall, was very well done. 

 

It is the second essay in this book:

The Structure of being, a Neoplatonic approach

Titled: On logical structure and the Plotinic cosmos / R.M. Martin

 

It is partly in rather technical prose which introduces and explains the proofs offered which are in a more symbolic mathematical framework.  It is an outline of his suggested approach.  It is also available on Archive.org as a limited preview with its usual restrictions on use and download for this type of work.

 

There are several interesting papers of more or less technical/mathematical difficulty.

 

I hope this information is interesting and useful.

 

ZYD

[wandelaar]

Thanks!

 

A large part of the article is shown here: https://books.google.nl/books?id=tcx4PDI5OOYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

And some articles by R.M. Martin can be freely downloaded from his website: https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/Papers/

 

I will take a look later.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

preferring Plato

 

There is nothing wrong with preferring plato.  My comment was directed to @SirPalomides who insists that the Zohar must have been influenced by neoplatonism when it does not come close to what is written in the Zohar.

 

Here is a good example.  What is neoplatonic here?

 

https://www.zohar.com/zohar/Tetzaveh/chapters/2

 

 

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Okay these ideas arose

 

They didn't arise in that time.  They were written down in that time.  The proof of it is in the fact that there are many scriptureal references supporting the ideas, and, the talmud names both kabalaistic schools and confirms that they are not to be written.

 

This shows that the ideas predate your assumed arising

 

8 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Okay, Kabbalist texts are borrowing Platonist language

 

They're not borrowing platonist language. The english translators are borrowing the language.  For example:

 

פָּתַח עוֹד ר' שִׁמְעוֹן וַאֲמַר רְאוּ עַתָּה כִּי אֲנִי אֲנִי הוּא וְאֵין אֱלֹקִים עִמָּדִי וגו', אֲמַר, חַבְרַיָּיא, שְׁמָעוּ מִלִּין עַתִּיקִין, דְּבָעִינָא לְגַלָּאָה, בָּתַר דְּאִתְיְהֵיב רְשׁוּ עִלָּאָה לְמֵימַר, מַאי נִיהוּ דַּאֲמַר רְאוּ עַתָּה כִּי אֲנִי אֲנִי הוּא אֶלָּא, דָּא הוּא, עִלַּת עַל כָּל עִלָּאִין, הַהוּא דְּאִתְקְרֵי עִלַּת הָעִלּוֹת, עִלַּת מֵאִלֵּין עִלּוֹת, דְּלָא יַעֲבֵיד חַד מֵאִלֵּין עִלּוֹת שׁוּם עוֹבָדָא, עַד דְּנָטֵיל רְשׁוּת מֵהַהוּא דַּעֲלֵיהּ, כְּמָה דְאוֹקִימְנָא לְעֵילָא בְּנַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם.

 

Here is an example of Zohar in which the english translator uses the phrase "cause of causes", but, that's not what it actually says.  The "kabalah centre" has chosen that phrase.  But it doesn't say that.  It's close, it's similar, but it's not borrowing their language.  The english translator is using their language.

 

Here's a link to their translation.  If you read carefully, God is NOT the "arising of arisings" in the Zohar. Rabbi Shimon corrects the students.  God is above all the causes.  Not an "arising" like the others.  There's two things happening simultaneously.  There is a chain of "arising", and there is God.  That is kabalah.  Is that in neoplatonism?

 

https://www.zohar.com/zohar/Bereshit A/chapters/15

 

8 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Also “copying” is a mischaracterization.

 

If the ideas predate hellenism, and predate neoplatonism, then the accusation of "being influenced" is wishful thinking.

 

8 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

As for the idea that Gershom Scholem was insufficiently grounded in Judaism to understand Kabbalah… that’s funny.

 

He only has access to the oral tradition.

 

4 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

they think this means something compromising monotheism

 

If there is a "logos" that is not monotheism.  You seem to think it is.

 

8 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Jews were integrated into Hellenistic culture

 

Not the ones who did not assimilate.  You seem to assume that all jews were doing the same things.  And you seem to ignore that the Torah defines judaism.

 

7 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

This discussion has gotten woefully off track, at least you are back to the bottom of the tree where the roots and trunk merge.  I have watched this discussion, and have looked deeper into some points of interest, especially about the Elephantine settlement, where an apparent lacuna in Biblical history needs some investigation and explaining.  It cannot be dismissed because it was brought up by an "independent scholar", truth is truth no matter who has said it.  What is the truth in this matter.  Gmirkin puts it in one framework, what others can be reasonable proposed, and what are their implications and consequences to the history of the "Old Testament"?  That is what I want to know and examine.

 

Gmirkin's dates are off.  It's that simple.  He isn't aware of the archeology that supports an earlier written law.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

There is nothing wrong with preferring plato.  My comment was directed to @SirPalomides who insists that the Zohar must have been influenced by neoplatonism when it does not come close to what is written in the Zohar.

 

Here is a good example.  What is neoplatonic here?

 

https://www.zohar.com/zohar/Tetzaveh/chapters/2

 

 

This combines Hebrew lettrism with the Platonic understanding of a World of Forms imprinting on the lower worlds, and the theurgic gradation (most explicitly laid out in Proclus) from lower to higher intelligibles, reaching a point where names are no longer effective and prayer becomes silence : 

 

Quote

There are large letters and small letters. Large letters are above IN BINAH, and small letters are below IN MALCHUT. Everything below, IN MALCHUT, is in the likeness of above, IN BINAH, because there are holy, supernal names IN BINAH that are drawn only by a willing of the spirit and heart, without any speech at all. And there are lower Holy Names IN MALCHUT that are drawn by speech, and with directing thought and will towards them.

 

However, while I have seen some forays by the Greek philosophers into lettrism, nothing approaches the intensive elaborate systems one finds in Kabbalah and Sufism, so I think this lettrism is a unique Semitic contribution.