Pagan roots of the abrahamic traditions

[SirPalomides]

To say “there is no logos in monotheism” one would have to actually define what logos means. The term was used in many different ways in Greek philosophy and among Platonists. Depending on the sense it clearly does have an important role in all the monotheistic faiths. (Gospel of John being only the most obvious example). Often it is a principle related to, or identical with, God’s wisdom, creative pattern, etc. Kabbalah’s heavenly Adam or one or several of the sefirot, for instance, are logos along these lines.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

there is no logos in monotheism

 

If it has a will of its own, it is not monotheism.  It is a vessel, nothing less nothing more.

 

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Kabbalah’s heavenly Adam or one or several of the sefirot, for instance, are logos along these lines.

 

The corresponding concept is the shechina which is the divine-presence from the root shin-chaf-nun, to dwell, conjugated feminine.  The mystery of creation via divine speech terminates with shechina which is always and forever emanating from the source of reality which is commonly referred to as God.

 

King David writes:

 

לעולם יהוה דברך נצב בשמים׃
For ever, O Lord, your word is fixed in heaven.
 

פתח דבריך יאיר מבין פתיים׃
The unfolding of your word gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.
 

נר־לרגלי דברך ואור לנתיבתי׃
Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.

 

https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7931/jewish/Chapter-52.htm

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

The term was used in many different ways in Greek philosophy and among Platonists.

 

Please bring some examples.

[SirPalomides]

This site has a good selection of quotes on Logos by various Stoics and middle Platonists (including Philo): https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/logos.html

 

Philo’s work proved influential for Christians trying to make sense of the New Testament Logos.

 

Later Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus use Nous (usually translated “mind” or “intellect”) to designate something like Philo’s Logos. They use the term logoi to designate the principles by which the forms in the divine Nous are translated into ensouled and inanimate beings.

 

Roughly by this schema, in the Zohar passage above, the big letters are forms, the little letters logoi.

 

Christians like Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor take this notion of logoi and combine it with Christ the Logos to say that all the logoi in creation proceed from- and lead back to- the Logos, and by contemplating the logoi in creation we can ascend to contemplation of God. The logoi are not independent at all- insofar as anything strays from the will of God, it strays from its own logos.

 

I’m not aware of any conception of the Logos as a being with “a will of its own.” Even the Christian Logos as a distinct “hypostasis” (problematically translated “person” in English) does not have his own will, will being a property of nature, and the Trinity being of one nature (homoousios), according the adaptation of Aristotelian categories by post-Nicene Christians. (Of course this is complicated by the Logos’ assumption of human nature- did Christ then assume a human will distinct from the divine will? This was a matter of bitter controversy in the 7th century which earned Maximus the name “Confessor” and essentially cost him his life).

 

Leaving Logos aside, even the explicitly polytheist systems of Iamblichus and Proclus, which talk about the Demiurge, hypercosmic gods, encosmic gods, daemons, etc were easily cleaned up and adapted by monotheists since these “gods” are emanations from the One acting in perfect harmony and could easily be reframed as attributes or activities of the one God, or mapped onto the angelic hierarchy.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

were easily cleaned up and adapted by monotheists

 

You're doing it again...  "the monotheists took those ideas ( copied them ) and adapted them".  I've shown you the ideas predate all of that.

 

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Roughly by this schema, in the Zohar passage above, the big letters are forms, the little letters logoi.

 

 

Which Zohar passsage?  The one you referred to as "letterism"?  The ones above are quadrangles?  The ones below are circular?

 

"According to the secret of the letters that are engraved with dots, that the supernal lights are a quadrangle and those of below are circular.  This has no body. When it is clothed by them, it stands on nine pillars, according to the secret of the letter final Mem, without a circle. Even though the letter Samech is round and shaped like a circle. According to the secret of the letters that are engraved with dots, that the supernal lights are a quadrangle and those of below are circular."

 

"And this is the secret. The letter Yud is one point (dot) and even though it is one point, its shape has a head above, it amounts to three points like the Hebrew dot Segol,  Therefore, the expansion to four sides, three on each side, equals nine and eight.  These are pillars that stem from the secret of the luminary to support the letter Yud, and they are considered its Chariot (Mercavah).  They are not called by name, just by the secret of the nine vowels in the Torah."

 

 

"In the secret of the Book of Adam, these nine that are eight divided into permutations of letters of the Holy Name. This is in order to combine and unite them in all these manners, because when these eight, which are nine, travel.  They shine with the illumination of the letter final Mem quadrupled, and extract eight lights that appear like nine. They divide below to carry the Tabernacle."

 

Didn't you say that logos is a "great reason" according to philo?  None of that fits with what is written above.

 

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

This site has a good selection of quotes on Logos by various Stoics and middle Platonists (including Philo): https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/logos.html

 

.. it is not the pursuits which you follow that are the causes of your participation in good or in evil, but rather the divine reason [logos], which is the helmsman and governor of the universe ...

 

Notice that the logos is the helmsman and governor.  That is heresy.  That is in opposition to the Torah.  Either the author is holding heretical ideas, the translator is superimposing those ideas onto the author's words, or, the quote is taken out of context and there is clarification elsewhere which corrects this.

 

Philo, On Husbandry XII (45) (p. 178)

 

... For God, like a shepherd and king, governs (as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water, and the fire, and the air and all the plants, and living creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine; and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them according to law and justice; appointing as their immediate superintendent, his own right reason [logos], his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the great king; ...

 

This is also against the Torah, because, the Torah very clearly states, there is no other, only God.  This claims there is another, a deputy, a lietuenant.  The "right reason" has been seperated from God.  The authority has been delegated to it.  That will not ever be found in Torah.

 

Isaiah writes:  

 

אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃
I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to carved idols.
 

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Philo’s work proved influential for Christians trying to make sense of the New Testament Logos.

 

If you would like to make claims about greek influence on Christianity, be my guest.  If the compilers of the Christian bible were influenced by jewish heretics ( or were themselves jewish heretics ), that is also a good fit.

 

Mark 2:17 ( NIV ):

 

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

 

If the desire is to be congruent with Jewish principles the place to go is the hebrew bible.  Starting with jewish heresy is going to produce jewish heresy.  Garbage in ---> garbage out.

[Daniel]

On 12/1/2023 at 1:09 PM, SirPalomides said:

After He made that image of the Chariot of supernal man,

 

Adam kadmon... is the image of the chariot per the Zohar you quoted.

 

7 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Kabbalah’s heavenly Adam or one or several of the sefirot, for instance, are logos along these lines.

 

If so, you would need to find something in the neoplantists discussing a chariot, a mercavah.

 

Among other things that is missing is the left-right paradigm.

 

Ultimately there are 2 systems, both are considering a formless singular creator.  There is a jewish philosopher using the word "logos", and as you've stated, Christians were/are confused about what is happening in the book of John.

[SirPalomides]

My purpose in posting that link on logos was to show how the term has been used in differing ways by different thinkers. Jumping on Philo's particular usage to say, "Aha! Heresy!" is besides the point. 

 

I referred to a specific Platonic section of the Zohar passage: the supernal large letters above (forms), and the small letters below in their likeness (logoi). We contemplate the likenesses below, accessible to thought and speech, and then we can rise to the silent, noetic contemplation of their originals. The theurgic ascent from speech to silent prayer/contemplation is also typical of late Platonism. I did not, however, suggest that there is a 1:1 correspondence between everything in the Zohar (or everything in Kabbalah) and Greek philosophy; that there are plenty of uniquely Jewish elements was never in doubt. Nor have I suggested that Greek concepts were adopted uncritically or without modification. The "pagan" Platonists had plenty of disagreements among themselves. Iamblichus' seminal On the Mysteries of the Egyptians is framed as a polemic against Porphyry (and, by extension, Plotinus). 

 

Again, "copying" is a mischaracterization. Like Philo, medieval kabbalists were in their view drawing legitimately from a common inheritance of wisdom- the truth is one whether spoken by Jews or gentiles- and the gentile philosophers had ultimately learned from Jews anyway. The "pagan" Platonists likewise traced their views not only to Greeks but to various "barbarian" sages (barbarian here meaning foreign, not uncivilized)- these barbarian sages included Egyptians, Chaldeans/Babylonians, Brahmins, and, in some accounts, Hebrews. Porphyry in his anti-Christian polemics speaks very favorably of the Jews (and seems to know the scriptures quite well)- he regards them as inheritors of a genuine wisdom tradition. Iamblichus- of Arab extraction and proudly retaining his Arab name- castigated the Greeks as chasing after novelties while the wise barbarians held fast to the authentic tradition. So there was a general agreement in the late antique and medieval intellectual culture that there was some unified primordial wisdom tradition, shared between cultures, even if one saw this primarily/ most purely expounded by Moses, Thoth-Hermes, Pythagoras, Zoroaster, or someone else. Among the Abrahamic religions it was typical to draw on "pagan" thinkers with the understanding that that they had received some imperfect revelation which,  once cleaned up of erroneous elements, could serve in expounding the true religion (whatever that was)- in fact, this "pagan" wisdom properly belonged to the true religion and ultimately stemmed from it. 

 

Moshe Idel gives some really good examples of this thinking among renaissance Italian Kabbalists:

 

Quote

Instead of allowing for two independent sources of 
knowledge, the Mosaic and the Greek or pagan, as happened in many cases in the 
Florentine Renaissance, the Jewish intelligentsia preferred to stress that truth 
stemmed ultimately from the Mosaic revelation, and that it had been subsequently 
accepted by Plato but distorted by Aristotle. In any case, Aristotelianism was a less 
influential philosophy among the Renaissance Jews than among their medieval 
predecessors, and thus a less dangerous form of thought. A similar phenomenon 
is discernible in the comparison made by Abravanel between the Kabbalah and 
Plato, again in his Mif' alot 'Elohim: 

Plato has caught a slight glimpse of the truth of this matter. As a result he 
does not apply the Gate of Creation to the angels, but applies to them only 
the Gate of Emanation, since their existence does not originate in the primal 
matter, [a term] by which he designates the rest of the corporeal world. 
Furthermore, concerning nonexistence, which he accepts bounds them by 
nature, he does not assert their deterioration, as is the case with the other 
parts of the world, but their return and adherence to eternal life, which he 
calls Idea, that is to say, a divine quality. . . . And thus has been said by the 
Kabbalists, that the spiritual angels are the bearers of His Throne of Glory. 
It is therefore more appropriate that it be called Emanation and Aggregation 
than Creation and Construction, or Nonexistence and Absence. 

Despite Abravanel's explicit reference to Plato, it is the Neoplatonic view of 
emanation that he has in mind, beginning with Plotinus — in this case, referring to 
the emanation of the angels. According to Abravanel, Plato's approach is parallel 
to the Kabbalists' concept of emanation. In the passage quoted above from his 
answer to R Shaul ha-Kohen, Abravanel compares Plato's Ideas with another 
kabbalistic topic. There, as in the quotation from the eschatological treatise 
Yeshu'ot Meshiho, the similarity between a view peculiar to Plato and a Jewish view — 
in this case, as explicitly indicated, a kabbalistic approach — becomes apparent. 
Such an accord is not accidental, for, as Abravanel implies, Plato had acquired 
knowledge from Jeremiah in Egypt. In his Mif' alot 'Elohim we read: 

The greatest among sages has said: "Who knows whether the spirit of man 
goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to earth?" [Ecclesiastes 
3:21]. For this human spirit is a celestial nature, originating in the region of 
divine matters. Hence, it moves continually on its own behalf in a circular 
movement, just like the heavenly bodies and the stars. Therefore, Plato the 
sage has said that the soul moves of its own accord in a circular movement, 
both in the body and outside the body, both prior to merging with it and 
after the separation from it. For through this movement it shall obtain its 
essence and acknowledge its Creator. For He is the soul's active essence and 
perfection as long as heaven is on earth. In truth, this is a scientific clause 
fitting for one of his stature, a student of the prophet Jeremiah, may he rest 
in peace. And this spiritual corporeality is the bearer of the intelligent Spirit, 
which is the spirit within man's heart. 18 

Here Abravanel assesses not only the conceptual similarities between Jewish and 
Platonic views but also their historical filiation; Plato studied with the prophet. 
This topic recurs in Abravanel's Commentary on the Book ojjeremiah: "Following the 
destruction [of the Temple] he left for Egypt, and there he dwelled for many years, 
void of prophecy, until the day of his death, and, as attested by the rabbi and the 
Greek sages, Plato spoke to him in Egypt." 19 

It is against this background that the conceptual framework of Abravanel's 
son, the famous Leone Ebreo, should be viewed. He was better acquainted than his 
father with Neoplatonic literature, in its Latin translation, and used it in his own 
work. 20 The "ancient theology" theory as presented in Leone Ebreo's Dialoghi 
d'Amore provides a key to the understanding of his thought. There the younger 
Abravanel writes: 

Since I am a follower of Moses in matters relating to the divine, I hold to this 
second theory, which is in accordance with Mosaic teaching. And Plato, who 
was more versed in ancient lore than Aristotle, was of this opinion; whereas 
Aristotle, who penetrated less deeply into abstract things, and unlike Plato 
had not the testimony of our ancient theologians, denied that which was 
hidden from his sight, and united primary beauty with supreme wisdom. 
With this his mind was satisfied, and without seeing further he affirmed 
supreme beauty and wisdom to be the first spiritual origin of all things. 
Plato, however, having learned from the ancient fathers in Egypt, had a 
wider vision, even if it did not avail him to behold the hidden source of 
supreme wisdom or highest beauty; and the latter he made to be the second 
beginning of the universe, depending on the Most High God, the first cause 
of all things. And although Plato was for so many years the teacher of 
Aristotle, yet because he was instructed in the knowledge of things divine by 
our ancient fathers [nostri uecchi] , his learning was more excellent and culled 
from better masters than that of Aristotle. 21 

 

 

Quote

A positive appropriation of the prisca theologia theory can also be detected in R, 
Elijah Hayyim ben Benjamin of Genazzano, 35 a late-fifteenth-century Italian 
Kabbalist, who seems to be one of the first who explicitly connected Zoroastrianism, 
Pythagoreanism, and Kabbalah. In the context of a discussion on the metempsy- 
chosis and Zoroaster he writes: "I have also found that similar views were held 
by Numenius the Pythagorean and by Orlandus. 36 Numenius, out of his love 
of Moses' Torah, thought that Moses' soul had been reincarnated in his own 
body. 37 . . . And as regards this statement, 38 according to which the Kabbalists 
maintained that human souls are reincarnated in animal bodies, I answer that this 
view is to be found only in the works of the later Kabbalists, 39 and I did not find any 
support for this view in our sages' statements. However, I have found that this is 
the opinion of a certain ancient philosopher, namely Pythagoras and his sect." 40 

From the way in which Genazzano has earlier presented Zoroaster, and from 
the way in which he describes Numenius as also having derived his knowledge 
from Jewish sources, we may assume that this Kabbalist regarded the theory of 
metempsychosis as an authentic kabbalistic view, which subsequently reached 
Pythagoras in one way or another. However, with regard to the specific topic of 
reincarnation in animal bodies, the Kabbalist appears to be unable to corroborate 
it in earlier Jewish sources, and so mentions Pythagoras. 

 

Quote

Here I would like to describe briefly the hermeneutical approach, which involves the interpretation of one system of thought, 
the kabbalistic one, in relation to the basic theses of another system. We can designate 
Alemanno's hermeneutical approach as intercorporal, a term I propose for under- 
standing many of the medieval developments in systematic exegesis of the Hebrew 
Bible, involving the application of concepts taken from other bodies of knowledge. 10 
This intercorporal approach is reflected strongly in the following passage: 

The ancients believed in the existence often spiritual numbers. ... It seems 
that Plato thought that there are ten spiritual numbers of which one may 
speak, but one may not speak of the First Cause, because of its great conceal- 
ment. However, they [the numbers] approximate its existence to such an 
extent that we may call these effects by a name that cannot be ascribed to the 
movers of corporeal bodies. However, in the opinion of the Kabbalists, one 
may say so of the sefirot. . . . This is what Plato wrote in the work ha-'Atzamim 
ha-'Elyonim" as quoted by Zekhariyahu in the book 'Imrei Shefer. 12 From it fol- 
lows that in Plato's view, the first effects are called sefirot because they may be 
numbered, unlike the First Cause, and therefore he did not call them movers. 1 ' 

Alemanno was undoubtedly aware of the semantic similarity between the terms 
sefirot and mispparim, both Hebrew words for "numbers." Both were considered as 
separate, namely spiritual, beings, and therefore he could assume that the affinity 
between the two concepts was not accidental. Again, on the basis of this quotation 
alone, one may assume that Plato — actually Proclus, a version of whose thought 
was quoted here from an unknown translation of Liber de Causis — not only pre- 
sented a doctrine of separate, namely spiritual, numbers similar to the kabbalistic 
sefirot, but did so independently of the kabbalistic traditions. Elsewhere, however, 
as we have seen in chapter 13 , Alemanno expresses the view that Plato studied with 
Jeremiah. 14 Alemanno is interested in the nature of the sefirot mostly as part of a 
cosmological discussion; in one of his round notes in the margin of a quotation 
from a commentary by R. Yehudah Hayyat, a Spanish Kabbalist whose activity will 
preoccupy us later, on Sefer Ma'arekhet ha-'Elohut, we read: "They said that the sefirot 
are intermediary between the world of eternal rest, that is, 'Ein Sqf, and the world 
of motion, that is, the world of the spheres; this is the reason why sometimes they 
are in a state of rest and sometimes in motion, as it is the nature of the intermedi- 
ary, composed as it is from the extremes." 15 Instead of the dynamic view of the 
sefirot in the work of the Spanish Kabbalist, copied by Alemanno, as connected to 
human activity through the commandments related to the processes in the sefirotic 
world, what I have called theurgy, Alemanno adopts a view of the sefirot as inter- 
mediary, closer to the theory of vessels or instruments, whose motion is caused 
by their ontological status and not by human acts. In the cultural environment 
of Alemanno, in the works of R. Yehi'el Nissim of Pisa, whose grandfather 
was Alemanno's patron, and whose uncle, R. Yitzhaq of Pisa, was Alemanno's 
student, we find a similar stand, though with a peculiar emphasis: 

The upper creatures are a paradigm for the lower creatures. This is because 
every lower thing has a superior power from which it came into existence. 16 
This resembles the relationship of the shadow to the object that casts it. . . . 
Even the ancient philosophers such as Pythagoras and Plato taught and 
made statements about this. However, the matter was not revealed to 
them in a clear way, but they walked in darkness, they attained and they did 
not attain [noge'a ue-'eino noge'a] , since the universals and the forms indicated 
by Plato hinted at this. . . . And since they did not receive the truth as it 
is but groped like the blind in darkness, so were their speculation and 
sayings. And we shall hold to the words of our ancient sages, which are true 
and were received from the prophets, blessed by their memory. And we 
shall assume that if this is so, the lower things need the upper one, this 
being a strict necessity, and the upper things need the lower one, to a limited 
extent, so that the entire world turns out to be one entity [ke-'ish 'ehad] , and 
in this manner each of the individual things will be distributed to the ten 
sefirot as if you will say that a certain creature is to be attributed to a certain 
sefirah. 17 

The similarity between the sefirotic realm and the lower beings is perceived as 
similar to the Platonic and Pythagorean views. 

However, R Yehi'el Nissim asserts, the pagan philosophers did not receive the 
naked truth but a dim revelation, different from the clear vision of the Jewish sages 
and prophets. The reason for and significance of the difference are not explicitly 
indicated; I shall try to guess them from the context. The similarity is manifesdy 
correct as far as the paradigmatic relationship of the upper and lower beings is 
concerned; in both cases the lower world reflects the upper one. However, the 
limited dependence of the upper on the lower one seems to be the nexus of the 
divergence between the Jewish and pagan sages. For the Kabbalists, the upper 
world, namely the sefirot, requires human worship in order to function in a per- 
fect way, a view that is foreign to Plato. Moreover, according to R Yehi'el Nissim, 
the possibility of influencing the supernal powers is related to the fact that the 
sefirotic realm is to be conceived as having an anthropomorphic structure; thus 
man, by reflecting this structure in his shape, can also influence it by his deeds. 
This point, elaborated by the Italian Kabbalist in a discussion immediately follow- 
ing the quotation above, is a crucial view of the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah, 
and R Yehi'el Nissim correctly comprehended the difference beyond the affinity 
between the two types of thought. Elsewhere this author portrays Plato in similar 
terms: 

From the words of Plato it seems that he is close to the view of the sages, 
blessed be their memory, when he says that the lower and corporeal world is 
in the likeness and image of the upper world. And he also said that there are 
forms in the divine mind, named universals [kelalim] , which are similar to 
the individuals. Nevertheless it seems to me that he did not enter [the inmost 
part] to know truly the depth of the significance of the Torah and her sages, 
blessed be their memory, but he remained outside the court, he attains and 
he did not attain; therefore, he and the other ancient [philosophers] could 
not know the truth of the quintessence of the things, but they came close 
[to the Jewish sages] as it was said in the Midrash ha-Ne'elam: lS "They are 
close to the path of [kabbalistic] truth." 19 

 

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

My purpose in posting that link on logos was to show how the term has been used in differing ways by different thinkers. Jumping on Philo's particular usage to say, "Aha! Heresy!" is besides the point. 

 

It is the point, because, this thread is about pagan roots.  Ignoring the heresy is ignoring the point of the thread.

 

What's needed, if you would like to use Philo's example:

1. Bring Philo's definition of logos
2. Bring a kabalistic source which matches it
3. Show that the kabalistic source is not coming from Torah or Tanach

 

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

referred to a specific Platonic section of the Zohar passage

 

You seem to be adding the "platonic" to the passage.  You're platonic.  The Zohar is not. 

 

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

the supernal large letters above (forms), and the small letters below in their likeness (logoi). We contemplate the likenesses below, accessible to thought and speech

 

You added the words "forms" and "logoi" here.  If we read the actual passage, there is no distinction in form between the supernal letters and the lower letters.  Further, if the entire passage is considered, there is nothing platonic about that is being taught.

 

Let's just use the translation you have chosen.  Let's ignore the surrounding context and the simply compare what you wrote with what is in the translation.  Doing this shows, not only that you are adding words to force the short snippet to be platonic, but you are also removing words to force it to be platonic. 

 

Here is the Zohar passage uneditted:

 

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

 

Here is your editted version:

 

the supernal large letters above (forms), and the small letters below in their likeness (logoi). We contemplate the likenesses below, accessible to thought and speech

 

In the original version, everything is in the likeness above.  There is no form/logoi dichotomy.  You added that.  Further you omitted the perscription in the willingness of the spirit and the heart which is lacking vocalization.  This is important because greek philosophers idolize the intellect.  Kabalists do not do this.  If you continue reading the passage the focus is on the "vav" which is connectivity in kabalah.  If the passages are cropped and cherry picked, yes, an illusion is produced where it appears that kabalah matches "greek wisdom".  

 

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

I did not, however, suggest that there is a 1:1

 

Here is what you said:

 

"cleaned up and adapted by monotheists".  It can not be cleaned up nor adapted if it was not copied first.  I think it's clear from what you've written that you held to a postion that kabalah was influenced from greek wisdom.  The direction of influence was asserted with certainty.  Hopefully your position is evolving on this.

 

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Like Philo, medieval kabbalists were in their view drawing legitimately from a common inheritance of wisdom- the truth is one whether spoken by Jews or gentiles- and the gentile philosophers had ultimately learned from Jews anyway. The "pagan" Platonists likewise traced their views not only to Greeks but to various "barbarian" sages (barbarian here meaning foreign, not uncivilized)- these barbarian sages included Egyptians, Chaldeans/Babylonians, Brahmins, and, in some accounts, Hebrews. Porphyry in his anti-Christian polemics speaks very favorably of the Jews (and seems to know the scriptures quite well)- he regards them as inheritors of a genuine wisdom tradition. Iamblichus- of Arab extraction and proudly retaining his Arab name- castigated the Greeks as chasing after novelties while the wise barbarians held fast to the authentic tradition. So there was a general agreement in the late antique and medieval intellectual culture that there was some unified primordial wisdom tradition, shared between cultures, even if one saw this primarily/ most purely expounded by Moses, Thoth-Hermes, Pythagoras, Zoroaster, or someone else. Among the Abrahamic religions it was typical to draw on "pagan" thinkers with the understanding that that they had received some imperfect revelation which,  once cleaned up of erroneous elements, could serve in expounding the true religion (whatever that was)- in fact, this "pagan" wisdom properly belonged to the true religion and ultimately stemmed from it. 

 

This entire paragraph is a rejection of the previous assertions that jewish kabalah is influenced by neoplatonism.  You have correctly rolled back to long before neoplatonism.  However you have incorrectly stated the position of the jewish philosophers ( whom had not adopted heretical views ).

 

What happens consistently is both: the errroneous teachings are excluded AND what remains is presented as an incomplete version of what is considered the original religion.  Whether or not this is "true" is debatable, of course.  But, it is false to claim that the jewish mystical tradition was influenced by the others in any way other than rejection.

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

the pagan philosophers did not receive the naked truth but a dim revelation, different from the clear vision of the Jewish sages and prophets.

 

There were a couple of examples in the quote you brough, but, I think this one is the best.  This, right otr wrong, is the point of view of the jewish philosophers.  Where the other traditions match, they are incomplete.

 

The way to evaluate if this is true or false is to notice that the shared concepts ( which are not heretical ) are connected to the Torah.  And.  The elaborate details which are not included in the other traditions are ALSO connected to the Torah but are nuanced and concealed from the casual observer.  So, it's easy to imagine, highly plausible, that a debate or conversation is happening between an jewish philosopher and a greek philosopher.  The greek philosopher challenges the jewish philosopher.  ( This has been happening for thousands of years.  Christians come to say, you're wrong.  Muslims come to say you're wrong.  Greeks come to say you' re wrong. )  The jewish philosopher corrects it via the Torah, and then shows them the entire explanation via the Torah.  This is a strong argument fromt he jewish philosopher that the Torah is supreme.  That's what one finds in jewish philosophy ( which is not heretical ).

 

So, naturally, one is going to ask about the "heretical" philosophers.  Once it's confirmed that the Torah is the most likely source and and contains much much more than the other traditions, the heretical jewish philosopher is hopefully going to abandon the foriegn subject matter and return home.  That's why the concealed wisdom of the Torah is being revealed.

 

Ultimately, though, there is no reason for the non-jewish individual to try to argue about the "pagan" concepts being included in judaism UNLESS they attribute some sort of authority to judaism.  If they find their pagan beliefs to be true, and they would like to call on angels, or demons, or perhaps they would prefer to imagine a creator god which is "nothingness" and is somehow incapable of making judgements.  Perhaps it is comforting for them to imagine a god which is completely distant and univolved in their life, because they feel abandoned, or cannot make sense of the world in any other way.  That's perfectly fine for them.  Judaism teaches something different. Jewish mysticism teaches something completely different.

 

However, for a jewish person, it only makes sense for them to learn about their roots, their heritage, the philosophy of their lineage without interference.  Sadly, we jews are in large part captives among the other nations.  This is obviously going to interfere especialyy when non-jewish people assert their ignorance of jewish philosophy as absolute certain fact.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

It is the point, because, this thread is about pagan roots.  Ignoring the heresy is ignoring the point of the thread.

 

What's needed, if you would like to use Philo's example:

1. Bring Philo's definition of logos
2. Bring a kabalistic source which matches it
3. Show that the kabalistic source is not coming from Torah or Tanach

 

I'm interested in talking about intellectual history. The view of a modern sectarian as to what constitutes heresy is no concern of mine. You might want to look into the parallels between Philo's Logos and Isaac Luria's Adam Kadmon though. 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

You seem to be adding the "platonic" to the passage.  You're platonic.  The Zohar is not. 

 

 

You added the words "forms" and "logoi" here.  If we read the actual passage, there is no distinction in form between the supernal letters and the lower letters.  Further, if the entire passage is considered, there is nothing platonic about that is being taught.

 

The accusation that I am somehow doctoring the passage would make sense if I had used quotes. I didn't. I did quote the original without any editing whatsoever. I then paraphrased and indicated the correspondences. Supernal big letters= forms. Small letters in Malkhuth= logoi. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 Further you omitted the perscription in the willingness of the spirit and the heart which is lacking vocalization. 

 

 

From speech to silence, so far so Platonic. 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

This is important because greek philosophers idolize the intellect. 

 

I would love to hear your account of what "intellect" means to all the Greek philosophers. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

"cleaned up and adapted by monotheists".  It can not be cleaned up nor adapted if it was not copied first.  I think it's clear from what you've written that you held to a postion that kabalah was influenced from greek wisdom.  

 

And I have demonstrated amply that it was. 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

This entire paragraph is a rejection of the previous assertions that jewish kabalah is influenced by neoplatonism. 

 

Nope, I am simply stating how the Kabbalists framed their own relationship to Greek philosophy and the "prisca theologia." 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

What happens consistently is both: the errroneous teachings are excluded AND what remains is presented as an incomplete version of what is considered the original religion.  Whether or not this is "true" is debatable, of course.  But, it is false to claim that the jewish mystical tradition was influenced by the others in any way other than rejection.

 

Only if one resorts to a "no true scotsman" strategy of ruling out inconvenient examples, which you have of course done at every turn. Philo is a heretic. Moses Maimonides (a towering figure in Judaism even today) and everyone influenced by him (including many Kabbalists)- heretics. Abulafia (very influential Kabbalist)- heretic. Whoever wrote the Merkavah-Hechalot texts were apparently heretics. Doubtless the Italian kabbalists cited by Moshe Idel will shortly be added to the catalog of heretics. And of course Gershom Scholem- whose enormous work for the study of Kabbalah is hailed not only by academics but practitioners- was a blockhead who never learned the real stuff. Okay, whatever.

 

I do not intend to waste any more time engaging with a narrow sectarian mindset that feels threatened by a little bit of historical context. I'd love to talk to anyone actually interested in discussing this stuff. 

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

I'm interested in talking about intellectual history

 

You seem to be interested in re-writing it.

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

The view of a modern sectarian as to what constitutes heresy is no concern of mine.

 

The thread is asking about "pagan".  The thread is asking about "abrahamic".  Abrahamic is defined by the Torah, not you, not me.  It's impossible to discuss what is or is not Abrahamic while denying the credibility of the books which define it.

 

This has nothing to do with me or my sect.  It has to do with the desire by many to reimagine a group from the outside.  The insider does have priviledged information.

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

You might want to look into the parallels between Philo's Logos and Isaac Luria's Adam Kadmon though.

 

Why?  You brought philo quotes.  They appear to be heretical, although, that could be the translator making choices.  They don't match adam kadmon as I understand the concept. If I were to correct it, based on what you brought, I would attribute philo's "logos" to "mochin" aka "the-god-head".  Does that fit?  You're the expert on philo's logos.

 

Adam Kadmon is not creating anything.  It's definitely not a delegate which is given authority for creation.  It's not even an empty vessel.  It's internal, "pre"-expression.  "Pre" is in quotes because there is no "prior" for the eternal.

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

The accusation that I am somehow doctoring the passage would make sense if I had used quotes. I didn't. I did quote the original without any editing whatsoever. I then paraphrased and indicated the correspondences. Supernal big letters= forms. Small letters in Malkhuth= logoi. 

 

It doesn't say "malchuth" in the original.  That is added.  The original says they are all likenesses of each other, you have added a distinction between these likenesses which does not exist in the original.  It also exposes a miscomprehension.  Even if the commentary is included, the supernal exist in kesser ( you would probably call it kether ), the immanent exist in malchus ( malchuth ).  Malchus is a reflection of kesser.  There cannot be a dichotomy.  In fact:  malchus of the layer beyond is the kesser of the layer following/inside of it.  They are literally the same "form".  There cannot be a dichotomy there.

 

This reflection of "kesser <--> malchus <--> kesser" in atzilus and "mallchus <--> kesser <--> malchus" in assiyah is a great example of the sort of concepts which are often missing when outsiders try to learn kabalah.  What you've written about forms and logoi, is completely deviating from the Zohar quote to which you are referring.  Unless forms and logoi are identical.  Are they?

 

( Technically, the nesting is much more elaborate, but, what I wrote above is the basic idea. )

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

From speech to silence, so far so Platonic. 

 

You're still cropping out details.  It doesn't even say "from speech to silence".  It says there are lower names which vocalized and thought.  Then there is a different level of name which are not.  What'll really tickle the turnips, is:

 

 Kabalah teaches to go down for the purpose of going up.  Is that platonic?

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

I would love to hear your account of what "intellect" means to all the Greek philosophers.

 

It's not my account:

 

https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-philosophy/

 

 

From Thales, who is often considered the first Western philosopher, to the Stoics and Skeptics, ancient Greek philosophy opened the doors to a particular way of thinking that provided the roots for the Western intellectual tradition. Here, there is often an explicit preference for the life of reason and rational thought.

 

Under the sub-heading Plotinus:

 

The best life depends upon becoming one’s true self via the intellect, which means to step away from the part of the soul by which we typically identify ourselves, the passionate and desiring part of the soul. If we are now accustomed to identify ourselves by our likes, dislikes, opinions, , then a true Plotinian self would not be a self at all. For Plotinus, however, this is true selfhood since it is closest to the center of all life, the One.

 

( Notice the extreme deviation.  Kabalah teaches to connection with all, above-below, left-right, inner-outer.  This is favoring intellect of the mind and discouraging the passions of the heart. )

 

Under the sub-heading neo-platonists:  ( this is really important.  The bold introduces a direction of influence. )

 

 Plotinus set off a tradition of thought that had great influence in medieval philosophy. This tradition has been known since the 19th century as “Neoplatonism,” but Plotinus and other Neoplatonists saw themselves merely as followers and interpreters of Plato (Dillon and Gerson xiii). Plotinus’ student, Porphyry, without whom we would know little to nothing about Plotinus or his work, carried on the tradition of his master, although we do not possess a full representation of his work. With Iamblichus came a focus upon Aristotle’s work, since he took Aristotle as an informative source on Platonism. Neoplatonism also saw the rise of Christianity, and therefore saw itself to some degree in a confrontation with it (Dillon and Gerson xix). Perhaps in part because of this confrontation with Christianity, later Neoplatonists aimed to develop the religious aspects of Neoplatonic thought. Thus, the later Neoplatonists introduced theurgy, claiming that thought alone cannot unite us with gods, but that symbols and rites are needed for such a union (Hadot 170-171).

 

The neo-platonists were, maybe, influenced BY Christians not the other way around, per the University of Tennessee.  You had pointed to the theurgy as an indicator of the influence neoplatonists had ON kabalah.  Yet, the University of Tennessee encyclopedia of philosophy proposes the opposite.  What do you think of that?  

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

And I have demonstrated amply that it was. 

 

No, you haven't.  You've ignored what I've brought.  You've ignored your own sources.  In order to make a point you need to ignore what's written and replace it with outher words in the kabalistic texts.  Strike 1, strike 2, strike 3.

 

In order to demonstrate it amply, you'd need to at least be able to address what I've written, and show an actual similarity.  Your own sources admit, they are looking at hints, reverberations, and outright contradictions of what is written.  Ample is not a hint.  Ample is not a reverberation.  Ample is a strong match which has no obvious counter-examples.  You have yet to address any of the counter examples that I have brought.

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Nope, I am simply stating how the Kabbalists framed their own relationship to Greek philosophy and the "prisca theologia." 

 

Now you're flip-flopping.

 

Ya know what?  I've stopped caring.  Your desired and forcibly greek insertion from behind is uninvited and unwelcome.  This will be my last post to you.  Goodbye. Whatt ever questions I've asked, please consider them rhetorical.  I will not be reading any of your replies.

 

6 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Only if one resorts to a "no true scotsman" strategy of ruling out inconvenient examples, which you have of course done at every turn. Philo is a heretic. Moses Maimonides (a towering figure in Judaism even today) and everyone influenced by him (including many Kabbalists)- heretics. Abulafia (very influential Kabbalist)- heretic. Whoever wrote the Merkavah-Hechalot texts were apparently heretics. Doubtless the Italian kabbalists cited by Moshe Idel will shortly be added to the catalog of heretics. And of course Gershom Scholem- whose enormous work for the study of Kabbalah is hailed not only by academics but practitioners- was a blockhead who never learned the real stuff. Okay, whatever.

 

You have not been able to address any of the comments I have made. I've shown you the texts and what they say.  Yes, Maimonides books were burned.  Ravad, known by many as the father of kabalah cursed him because of what he wrote.  You ignored all of that.

 

Gershom Scholem is an outsider.  Those who are in the community do look unfavorably on the ideas that he considers to be "kabalah".  

 

The fact that you do not care about what is authentic or not, doesn't matter.  Your standards are weak.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Daniel

[wandelaar]

On 12/3/2023 at 12:24 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

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

 

Found a whole book by John N. Martin on the same subject: https://www.amazon.com/Themes-Neoplatonic-Aristotelian-Logic-Abstraction/dp/113825102X

 

Are R.M. Martin and John N. Martin different people?

Edited December 10, 2023 by wandelaar

[Zhongyongdaoist]

8 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Are R.M. Martin and John N. Martin different people?

 

I did a quick search and they seem to be different.

 

ZYD

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

I did a quick search and they seem to be different.

 

ZYD

 

Thank you. A very strange coincidence.