In my fairly recent research into the Therapeutae of Philo Judaeus, I realized that Yonge's Translation was exceedingly poor. Unfortunately, it has set an abysmal standard which subsequent translators have followed. Few scholars go beyond Yonge or Colson, sadly. For my own research, that clearly would not suffice.
I realized that Philo's data on the sect was more precise than assumed by scholars today (after Yonge & Colson), and this word
χρώμενοι (Khromenoi) revealed abit more about the Therapeuts.
DVC 3.29: ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ συγγράμματα παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν, οἳ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἀρχηγέται γενόμενοι πολλὰ μνημεῖα τῆς ἐν τοῖς ἀλληγορουμένοις ἰδέας ἀπέλιπον, οἷς καθάπερ τισὶν
ἀρχετύποις χρώμενοι μιμοῦνται τῆς
προαιρέσεως τὸν τρόπον·
Yonge's Trans:
DVC (29) They have also writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation, whom they use as a kind of model, and imitate the general fashion of their sect...
Colson's Trans:
Also they have writings of ancient men, who, being leaders of the sect, left behind many monuments of nature in allegorical form, which they treat as some sort of archetype, they mimic the manner of this similar sect...
My translation:
DVC 3.29: “They also have treatises of ancient men, founders of their sect {αἱρέσεως ‘heresy’}, who left behind many records of the allegorical interpretation of the Idea, which – according to a certain archetype {ἀρχετύποις} – they use {χρώμενοι} to imitate the course of action/purpose {προαιρέσεως} in such a way.”
At the start, before addressing
Khromenoi, this (process) must have smthg to do with the
προαιρέσεως (Proaíresis), a central idea in Aristotle's moral psychology. 'Deliberative will' (Proaíresisis) willingness and ethical intention ("making a decision"), choosing the moral action, the principle of action, the plan of action... for what end? For
anagogy, for
henosis obviously. But it's more than a mere modality, it's a 'way of life.' The Judeo-Hermeticist prays, "May I never fall from the band..." τάξει (= rank, band, company). In a three-fold system, the
Physical Company is the Race of the Logos; the
Mental Purpose is their
Proaíresis. The Spiritual ... ? Philo's suggestion of the Archetypal Hermeneutic is evasive, here: the Spiritual Component is esoteric, a KEY QUESTION.
On
Proaíresisis as a kind of zealotry (i.e. burning zeal), see for example Timothy H. Lim, "Towards A Description Of The Sectarian Matrix" in
Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament [2009]
, p.11:
Thus Philo calls the Therapeutae proairesis (Contempl. 29, 32 and 67) and hairesis (Contempl. 29), and the Essenes proairesis (Hypoth. 11.2). The basic meaning of both cognate nouns is that of 'taking' or 'choosing.' Thus, those who are described as belonging to a proairesis or hairesis have chosen a particular way of life or follow a philosophy. Philo, emphasizing the philosophical quality of virtue and philanthropy, describes the Essene's recruitment in a manner that reveals its essential character: Their enlistment (prohairesis) is not due to race — the word 'race' is unsuitable where volunteers are concerned — but is due to zeal for the cause of virtue and an ardent love of men.
Reading Liddell-Scott's
Greek-English Lexicon (1940), by variant definitions of
Khromenoi (= the Therapeutae; or Philo's
A. A.) should be those who a) consult/inquire {e.g. an oracle}; b) are experienced {e.g. in suffering, revelation}; c) become friendly or intimate with another {e.g. God}; d) make use of {e.g. a method} and e) proclaim the 'Therapeutic Idea' or Archetypal Hermeneutic of this Jewish mystical cult. In these definitions, there is also a sense of their Employment for a higher goal, divine Agency.
From the Edelsteins' monumental Torah of Sobriety,
Khromenoi correspondingly will be those who a) in daily inventory, "ask God's forgiveness and
inquire what corrective measures should be taken," those who have b) "had a
vital spiritual experience," those who c) have a "new-found
Friend" in God, those who d) are "
willing to make use of our experience" for their own spiritual recovery, so d) to "
make use of spiritual principles," and then e) to share our A. A. message, "our way of life." God is the Director, you are his agent, etc.
How Philo Judaeus uses this seemingly trivial term χρώμενοι (an engaged state of being?) in his other works may provide greater insights. But this concept is richly elaborated in the Neo-Therapeut recovery bible written in 1938. Our Archetype (i.e. the Therapeutae =
Aletheian Anthropoi: the primeval
A. A.) is rather obvious, but the Prototype is mysterious still.
What is the 'Therapeutic Idea', what was their Archetypal Hermeneutic? The
Archetype (ἀρχετύποις) in its origin, purpose, effect, etc. is, I believe, the Logos (Son of God), as indicated at
De Somniis, 1.215 (for these mystics are 'the Sons of God'):
De Somniis, 1.215: The perceptible copy {of the Archetype or Second Son; i.e. human Actualized Man = A. A.} is not a mimic performing paternal prayers and sacrificial acts, but one allowed to put on the aforesaid tunic/mantle (i.e. exact replica of the entire Heaven), so both Cosmos with man and man with the Whole may synergistically realize a pious discernment and supra-rational accord (i.e. accomplishing sacrifices).
Exactly: why we pray. For 'Gnosis' of God:
Knowledge of His Will for us, and The Power to carry It out.
Another example of Philo's
Archetype is worth examining (and here is a
thesis):
De Opificio Mundi 69: ἡ δὲ εἰκὼν λέλεκται κατὰ τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμόνα νοῦν· πρὸς γὰρ ἕνα τὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐκεῖνον ὡς ἂν ἀρχέτυπον ὁ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀπεικονίσθη, τρόπον τινὰ θεὸς ὢν τοῦ φέροντος καὶ ἀγαλματοφοροῦντος αὐτόν·
My working trans:
And Ikon is called 'Sovereign Ruler' of Psyche, namely: Nous. For the One is in everything, in some sense; He is the Archetype against which each has been partly modelled, in some manner the god which is carried and made a statue of (i.e. 'glorifies') him.
Philo presents an intriguing but complex topic mentioned in
De Opificio Mundi 16 and 25. Jews were forbidden from glorifying, representational ikons of God, then in the 1st C. AD as now. Unless Philo's audience was heterodox or proselytes who needed an explanation within their own trope, this analogy sounds problematic. In any case,
Nous cannot be the Unknown Father-God - for how could that be - unless pagan idolatry (i.e. mimicry) is accepted by this philosophically-minded Jew.
The Soul's nous - its hegemon or 'ruling faculty' (we might say 'Conscience') - is 'Ikon': the Image of God/Imago Dei. Here, 'Ikon' is not
Anthropos but rather or supposedly
Logos, unless Logos = Cosmic Man. (Elsewhere in Philo, the Image is Anthropos, Adam Kadmon.) The Authors of
Genesis knew and incorporated this myth, c.272 BC; Sethians would seem to be in existence by c.350 BC if not earlier (Josephus also claimed they were ancient, and sets them apart: a cult of Judaism.) Philo is describing mystical doctrine of the 'Son of God' cult: Sethians.
- Genesis 5:3, RSV
When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image (Hebrew wayyōled bidm–utō ketsalmō; Greek egennēsen kata t–en idean autou kai kata tēn eikona autou), and named him Seth.
Where an individual's mind (nous) has for its archetype the
Logos-Nous, (Son of) Divine Mind, the Creator should be the Second Power/Second God. 'Father and Creator' is therefore two hypostases (as the Christian Trinity has three): God made the Image of God (Archetype) and Mankind is fashioned after the Image, in an iconic sense. 'Sons of Man' (Cainite, after
Anthropos) and 'Sons of God' (Sethian, after
Logos) should be exclusive categories, if not competing cults.
Whether Philo's topical treatment is inescapably muddled, or deliberately obscure (esoteric), or 'the Mystery' has inherent contradictions, or a double-language is deployed (for either converts or persecuted Jews forced to adopt gentile conventions) we cannot say. The verse/context of
De Opificio Mundi 69 is not clear. I suppose it is merely a variety of cosmopolitan 'psychological Judaism' and/or a prevalent Mysticism expressed evasively, but my amateur opinion may be too simplistic/ignorant.
The simple point, however, remains fairly straight-forward and consistent with
De Somniis, 1.215: the 'Sons of God' will replicate God's revealed process as nearly as possible, to (re-)make the Actualized or Divinized Man (A. A.) in their cult.
...
...
(The more one thinks about it, the more obvious it is that a philologist was the Anonymous Author of the Rockefeller-funded book, this course of action/Program.)