Revisiting Philo's Therapeutae and their Context/Timeline

[billd89]

Moving the trees around, my friend, moving the trees around.
Rockefeller and Kublai Khan are moving the trees around.

Oh, Rockefeller moved some trees around alright. I like to keep it factual; see Jan Cigliano, Jan Cigliano Hartman, Showplace of America: Cleveland's Euclid Avenue, 1850-1910 [2002, p.106:

After a decade on the Avenue, the Rockefellers vacated the Euclid Avenue house {where John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his siblings were born} for their seventy-nine-acre Forest Hill estate. Rockefeller had originally developed this property around 140th Street in 1877 as a sanitarium; that endeavor failed, so he remodeled the main building for his new residence. [...]Meanwhile, the house on the Avenue stood as a grand residence occupied only by a maid. Decades later, around the turn of the century, Rockefeller leased it as a sanitarium for alcoholics, which neighbor Edward A. Merritt disparaged as the "drunk cure establishment" and Homer Wade, son of Randall Wade, dubbed the "liquor effect eliminator establishment."

Rockefeller Sr. bankrolled Prohibition. Decades before that, he had a grand vision of a "water-cure" facility (for alcoholics and others) which failed immediately -- he took over that property for his personal Cleveland base. Then he leased out the old mansion, where he'd raised his family, as a Neal Institute rehab for alkies; the Neal Institute was a Hazelden of the early 20th C. Why?

I'd conservatively estimate J.D. Rockefeller Sr. spent over $1.5 mln (about $24 mln in 2023 money) on various alcohol/temperance projects from the 1870s until his death in 1937. But to my thinking, turning your very own house into an actual alcoholic rehab is a notch higher. Think: if Jeff Bezos turned his own mansion into a rehab for drug addicts, after privately and publicly funding so many known and unknown projects to treat addiction, you'd wonder, wouldn't you? Incidentally, Rockefeller Sr. was a teetotaler Presbyterian, vastly more influential socially and politically than Bezos has been or ever will be.



If you were a Refugee academic in 1938, and the Rockefeller Foundation had sponsored your immigration to the USA, and they had already paid your salary for 4 years at Johns Hopkins, and if your department boss had just received a massive grant from 30 Rock to "write a Book" for Midas ... would YOU say "No" Stephen? As far as I can tell, Ludwig Edelstein's -- from a moderately wealthy Berlin industrialist family, and by his very low-key political profile -- was what they once called a "Rockefeller Republican." Of course Edelstein did as the RF requested*, and he was named "Professor" about six months later ...despite a lack of credited publications towards an incomplete doctorate? Privatdozent in Germany, Professor in USA! Not bad, eh?

In gratitude, the Rockefellers took care of Ludwig Edelstein for the rest of his life. At Edelstein’s 1964 lecture on ‘Plato’s Seventh Letter: An Example of Historical Verification’ he himself slyly references his self-consciousness of this fact. "I am sure that it is for the first time that somebody talks on Plato in the research seminar, and I must say though the announcement says that these seminars are a device for interdisciplinary instruction and are meant to stimulate the mixing of disciplines I am forcefully reminded of what happened to me a few weeks ago in Princeton. I talked to the students, and was introduced by the Professor of Chemistry, and after he had made the usual complimentary remarks he said: 'Mr. Edelstein’s at the Rockefeller Institute, what they are using him for is beyond my imagination.'" (The audience reportedly laughed.)

What they used him for is certainly not beyond my imagination.


* In researching abit more, as I am wont to do, I just found a letter from Edward R. Murrow (yes, THAT Edward R. Murrow!) to Alfred E. Cohn regarding Dr. Ludwig Edelstein's intervention on behalf of Karl Lehmann* (Emma's old professor, I think) in March 1934. Elsewhere, I mentioned how the Edelsteins intervened to have the Rockefeller Foundation secure Erich Frank's release from a concentration camp in 1938/9. Apparently, the Edelsteins knew how to sway and influence the Rockefellers in the 1930s.

So YES, I think its 'kind of a big deal' that Ludwig probably visited 30 Rockefeller Center in early March 1938, to discuss details of the Foundation's project: how alcoholic recovery would be outlined as a modernized 'First Century' Therapeusis for psycho-spiritual healing.


* Hans Peter Obermayer, Deutsche Altertumswissenschaftler im amerikanischen Exil: Eine Rekonstruktion, p.120, Footnote 56 translated:

Edelstein and Lehmann-Hartleben knew each other from Heidelberg, where the former had completed his doctorate under Regenbogen (1929) and the latter had taught as a private lecturer (1925-1929). Both emigrated to Rome after their release, where they met again as users of the DAI and guests at Ludwig Curtius' house. Edelstein was one of the first to succeed in emigrating to the USA in the summer of 1934, thanks to an "associateship" that Henry E. Sigerist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore had been able to arrange for him (Rütten 2006, 68 with note 77). It is possible that the connection between Edelstein and Panofsky came about through Richard Walzer, who, like Edelstein, had had to give up his position as a private lecturer at Berlin University and was also living in Rome: Walzer's wife Sofie, the daughter of the publisher Bruno Cassirer, was related to the philosopher Ernst Cassirer, who was a close friend of Panofsky in Hamburg in the 1920s.

Obermayer (2018) has apparently missed the fact that E. Panofsky was married to Dorothea Panofsky (daughter of Caroline Meyer Mosse), who was Emma Jeanette Levy Edelstein's first cousin. Naturally, the Edelsteins contact with Panofsky was by intimate family connection, Emma's. Her own interest in art history also leads us to conclude that the Edelsteins connection to German art historian and Heidelberg archaeologist Ludwig Curtius was actually through Emma (his former student, c.1926-7). Whether or not Lehmann-Hartleben had been Emma's own Privatdozent, it is most likely her connection, here too.

[mbuckley3]

In January, 1938, A.D. Nock published an article by André-Jean Festugière on The Krater, an Hermetic symbol. Father Festugière (an anti-semite? anti-German?) dismissively references Edelstein's (German Jewish) friend and colleague's work,

For the record :

Gerschom Scholem writing to Morton Smith, 27 November 1980 :

"Did you know, by the way, that Festugière was a furious antisemite ? I don't know whether the old Jewish magicians of the Papyri or the modern Jews aroused his ire. When I once approached him, not yet knowing this well-known fact, he was most impolite, and I did not understand why."

[billd89]

In January, 1938, A.D. Nock published an article by André-Jean Festugière on The Krater, an Hermetic symbol. Father Festugière (an anti-semite? anti-German?) dismissively references Edelstein's (German Jewish) friend and colleague's work,

For the record :

Gerschom Scholem writing to Morton Smith, 27 November 1980 :

"Did you know, by the way, that Festugière was a furious antisemite ? I don't know whether the old Jewish magicians of the Papyri or the modern Jews aroused his ire. When I once approached him, not yet knowing this well-known fact, he was most impolite, and I did not understand why."

Thank you for this information. I merely perceived that a) the Edelsteins were (for some reason) writing against Festugière, b) Festugière was hostile to at least one Jewish scholar and friend of theirs, in a subtle way, possibly antisemitic, and c) the Edelsteins parrying with Festugière's theses suggested a personal animosity I could not otherwise fathom. SO Scholem's confirmation fits my initial but vague perception, yes.

Scholem states Festugière was a blatant antisemite. But he further suggests Festugière scorned heterodox Judaeo-Egyptian alchemists (Chaldaeans, Hermeticists, etc.) or his own contemporary Jewish scholar colleagues (I mean at least Scholem's friend Hans Lewy, maybe others I don't know of): that's on point to my earlier observation, I think.

(Festugière is a bit of a cunt, frankly; no surprise the Edelsteins disliked him.)

My opinion hasn't changed.

[billd89]

Anthony De Cosson, Mareotis : being a short account of the history and ancient monuments of the north-western desert of Egypt and of Lake Mareotis [1935], p.33;

In spite of these defeats there was a steady and persistent infiltration of Libyan and Meshwesh immigrants into the Delta under the immediate successors of Ramses III., and by the end of the weak 21st Dynasty (945 BC) this peaceful penetration reached its climax. The 22nd (or Meshwesh) Dynasty {943-716 BC} was established as “rulers of what was still the most powerful empire in the Eastern Mediterranean.” 1 They reigned over Egypt for two hundred years, and Libyan influence remained for some time after.
…
1 Botti wrote that the Meshwesh mercenaries were used to defend the country between Lake Mareotis and the sea (i.e. the Taenia), and probably they garrisoned the frontier wall erected against the Barbarians at Abu Sir after their defeat by Ramses III. When the Meshwesh became Pharaohs they made their capital at Bubastis (close to the modern Zagazig).

It is curious to me that the Libyo-Berber Meshwesh tribe, originally settled in the western Delta, should move their capital to the eastern Delta, to Bubastis/Pi-Beseth (Hebrew: פי-בסת py-bst), Per-Sopdu and Tanis, towns within a larger proto-Jewish settlement area later called "the Sethrum" or "Siriad". From there, proximate to Israel by an 8-10 day march, Shoshenq I would invade Judah; Shishak/Sousakim was also related to Biblical Jeroboam, first king of the northern Kingdom of Israel (c.910 BC).

I sense a long-standing Judeo-Meshwesh connection, here. These "Meshwesh" were cosmopolitan, politically-sophisticated, outward-looking: they built an empire. They must also have been (sea-)traders and trade negotiators, for this had been a very busy economic zone for centuries. Moreover, we know Proto-Jewish mercenaries had guarded this western border under Ramses II, c.1215 BC: Horon was worshipped here. Of course, the connection of Ramses II to the Jewish Bible and Canaanite god Horon is well-known from Antiquity and proven by certain archaeological evidence:



Actual evidence of Horon worship at Egypt's Libyan border may pre-date 1270 BC: that means Canaanites/Israelites were resident on the Tania for many hundreds of years before those "Persian" (Israelitish) mercenaries (and builders) cited by Herodotus (c.430 BC), whose visible fortifications at Taposiris Magna he identified. All this further clarifies what Philo Judaeus tells us (c.15 AD): this locale was in fact a Judaic "homeland" for many generations. If a "Jewish garrison" had been the likely basis for a politeuma c.200 BC, the Ptolemies were actually reckoning with a people settled in this place far longer than they. Undoubtedly, this Semitic people (however they were then called) long settled in the Tania must have had some Greek recognition from the time of Alexander. Eventually, by the time of Claudius (c.30 AD) at least, these Diaspora Semites were specifically known as "Jews."

Herodotus, The Histories, Book 2.18

The response of oracle of Ammon in fact bears witness to my opinion, that Egypt is of such an extent as I have argued. I learned this by inquiry after my judgment was already formed about Egypt. (2) The men of the cities of Marea {Μαρέης} and Apis, in the part of Egypt bordering on Libya, believing themselves to be Libyans {Λίβυες} and not Egyptians, and disliking the ritual prescription concerning sacred matters that forbade them from eating cows’ meat, sent to Ammon saying that they had no part of or lot with Egypt. For, as they said, they lived outside the Delta and did not consent to the ways of its people, and they wished to be allowed to eat all foods. (3) But the god forbade them, having said that “all the land watered by the Nile in its course was Egypt, and all who lived lower down than the city of Elephantine and drank the river’s water were Egyptians.” Such was the oracle given to them.

Herodotus (c.425 BC) names Mares ( = Marea), where Pharaoh Psamtik I installed a military garrison in 654 BCE, as a city where the inhabitants (at some point) viewed themselves as 'Libyan' and NOT 'Egyptian'. But hundreds of years earlier, Ramses II (c.1215 BC) had settled the area with the Shasu of Canaan, who worshipped the god Horon. The Meshwesh/Tjehenu (described as nomadic pastoralists) supposedly moved to the eastern Delta, that area known as the Sethrum, but this 'Libyan' group also had connections to Israel.

The (Semitic?) Mareans were exclusive, anti-Egyptian, independent in their appeal to a Libyan god, 'Jupiter Ammon' = Ba'al Hammon, Amun of Siwa, Re-Horakhty = Horon. It is interesting that, for whatever reasons, this group did not want to worship the cow (sacred animal of Isis) or join Egyptian-aligned Inaros, c.460 BC and sought an oracle for justification. This muddled history appears to record conflicting allegiances and shifting identities of the Mareotic people before the Ptolemaic period -- not Canaanite, not Libyan, not Egyptian: something Other. The establishment of a major Osiris-Isis-Horus temple complex here, the spread of Egyptian cults into the Roman Republic, then the expulsion from Rome of "Jews" w/ said troublesome Egyptian cults all suggest the outsized influence of Mareotic traders and their culture.

That Philo Judaeus (from one of the wealthiest families in the Empire) would come from such a prominent locale makes sense: this rich trade zone had been Semitic/quasi-Jewish for centuries. And that would explain why the 'Therapeutae' called this place their homeland.

See Jeffrey P. Emanuel, Black Ships and Sea Raiders: The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Context of Odysseus’ Second Cretan Lie (Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches), p.77:

Regarding Ramesses II's claims to have settled captured foes in areas distant from those whence they came (easterners in the west, westerners in the east, northerners in the south, etc.): An example of such a claim can be found on the southern wall of the Great Hall in the temple at Abu Simbel, where a representation of the pharaoh smiting Libyans is accompanied by text claiming that the Shasu of Canaan (northeast of Egypt) were stationed in the west by the pharaoh, and the Libyan *ḫnw Tjehenu sent east: He has placed the Shasu in the Westland and has settled the Tjehenu on the ridges. Filled are the strongholds he has built, with the plunder of his strong arm/sword (Kitchen, 1996, p.67). A reference to the Canaanite god Horon at el Gharbaniyat, one of Ramesses II s western fortresses ca. 70 km west of Alexandria, may also support this. While Horon was venerated in Egypt from the 18th dynasty due to a syncretistic relationship with Horus (Helck, 1971, p.454; Stadelmann, 1967, p.81; Van Duk, 1989, pp ), Habachi (1980, p.29) has suggested that this reference may signal such a stationing of troops from the eastern Delta or Palestine in this western fort. When considered in this context, 'the Sherden whom thou hast taken in thy might' being sent against the tribes of the desert in Papyrus Anastasi II may support the stationing of these warriors in one of Ramesses II's western fortresses, particularly if they originated from an Aegean, Anatolian, or Levantine location. Given this context, Zawiyet Umm el Rakham is even more of an interesting case. As noted above, evidence from the site demonstrates a level 56 {p.67} of cooperation and interaction between the personnel stationed there and the indigenous Libyans (Snape, 2010, pp.). This, combined with the fact that these western fortresses did not survive beyond the end of Ramesses II's reign, may suggest that some occupants of this outpost perhaps some of the Sherden who had been dispatched against the tribes of the desert were swept up in the Libyan movement that culminated in the famous battle of Merneptah's fifth year {c.1205 BC} (Emanuel, 2012a, pp.6-7).57

[billd89]

DVC 2: ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν #1: τὸ ὄν, ὃ καὶ #3: ἀγαθοῦ κρεῖττόν ἐστι καὶ #4 ἑνὸς εἰλικρινέστερον καὶ #2 μονάδος ἀρχεγονώτερον.

DVC 2: they are raised to worship 'Being' {#1: Προαρχή, Μονότης = Foresource, Monotes}, superior to 'The Good' {#3 Noetic Paradigm} and purer than 'The Unity' {#4 Ἑνότης The Henad: The All}, and primordial to 'The Monad' {#2 All-Source, One God}

The Four-fold Hypostases of 'God':
1. Primordial Being: Unknown/Unbegotten Absolute Being
2. Monad (Logos): First Son, Creator, Author
3. Divine Reality: Noetic Paradigm of Creation
4. Henad: Cosmic Reality (Creation: 'Heaven and Earth')

DVC 2: they are raised to worship 'Being' {#1: Προαρχή, Μονότης = Foresource, Monotes}, superior to 'The Good' {#3 Noetic Paradigm} and purer than 'The Unity' {#4 Ἑνότης The Henad: The All}, and primordial to 'The Monad' {#2 All-Source, One God}

Suppose Philo hints at other cults by their underlying philosophy; in other words, he is specifying their God-Concept: the divine foundation/expression of their belief-system. Doing this, he would be using a shorthand association OR simply identifying the philosophical school(s) around which said believers clustered.

a) The Existent (God-Concept) is superior to The Good (God-Concept), and
b) The Existent (God-Concept) purer than The Unity (God-Concept), and
c) The Existent (God-Concept) older than The Monad (God-Concept).

If the Monad best represents (Judeo-)Pythagoreans, the Henad (with its emphasis on Hypostases) probably represents Gnostics (i.e. Sethians, Valentinians, and earlier Enochic Judaism), and the 'Good-God' is the cult of Serapis-Agathodaimon or derivatives therefrom.

[billd89]

For the record :

Gerschom Scholem writing to Morton Smith, 27 November 1980 :

"Did you know, by the way, that Festugière was a furious antisemite ? I don't know whether the old Jewish magicians of the Papyri or the modern Jews aroused his ire. When I once approached him, not yet knowing this well-known fact, he was most impolite, and I did not understand why."

The construction of this sentence is most interesting.

Notice first that Scholem, identifying Festugière's antisemitism to someone Not Jewish, indicates only two probable causes or directions for the French priest's fury: 'Modern Jews' generally (cosmopolitans as a type, in the Classical field: i.e. rank antisemitism) but firstly, a very surprising alternative:

"I don't know whether the old Jewish magicians of the Papyri or the modern Jews aroused his ire."

Scholem and Morton Smith both believed that heretical Jews authored the PGM?? And the Hermetica -- what Festugière spent all his time writing about -- the "Papyri" is what else, really?

Throughout his writings -- and I had assumed it was a general Roman Catholic prejudice against pagans -- Festugière does seem very hostile to the Hermeticists, so it's quite logical to conclude that Scholem's 'Jews of the Papyri' also refers to Authors of the Corpus Hermeticum.

I'd like more information on this.

[DCHindley]

bld89,

Scholem and Morton Smith both believed that heretical Jews authored the PGM?? And the Hermetica -- what Festugière spent all his time writing about -- the "Papyri" is what else, really?

Of course not.

I agree that the "old Jewish magicians of the Papyri" does likely refer to the magical papyri (there are more than the ones in the collection known as PGM).

Some of the magical names used in incantations include themes from Judean sacred literature, but to be fair usually beside a whole variety of magical names of Egyptian, Greek, Barbarian & Roman origin. It was theorized that Judeans had authored some of these, and perhaps Scholem was among those who believed so.

There actually is a book of magical incantations, in Hebrew, from a slightly later time, varying little from the formulations used in PGM (but lacking the non-Judean magical names, these look more like variations of Merkabeh mystic prayers in 3 Enoch).

I do not believe that Scholem felt that the non-alchemy related Hermetica reflected Judean magic in any way, although you can clearly see the influence of themes from Genesis so suggesting Judean influence on the authors of some of these tracts.

Whether they were Jewish Magicians or common magicians (more like jugglers and slight of hand street hustlers) who decided to add the Judean god to the list of magical names used in invocations, and so reflect the understanding of a gentile of the 3rd century toward Judean magical incantations, possibly viewed in an agora as a public demonstration. Celsus claimed that anyone can view this kind of street-side show for "a few obols."

[billd89]

Why "Of course not"?

From context, and the fact that Festugière wrote Hermès Trismégiste: Corpus Hermeticum in 4 volumes, 1942–1953, Scholem is speaking of the Msgr.'s field of study, his life-work, not smthg else, the random.

From this context, it doesn't make sense that Scholem would've meant smthg unrelated to F.'s magnum opus. However surprising, the insinuation is clearly stated in that quotation. The PGM certainly overlaps the Hermetica, even if the artificial separation of the practical 'versus' theoretical Hermetica remains a popular bias (and misunderstanding) among scholars today. Where PGM = Hermetica, so "...of the Papyri" logically means 'of the Hermetica' also.

Early 20th C. scholars might well have written opinions in private letters to confidants which they would never publish openly. I'm curious to see other Scholem references or suggestions like this one, same implication.

Scholem's opinion about Festugière's antipathy may, of course, be wrong. But I am pursuing his suggestion that F. believed Jewish heretics wrote the PGM/Hermetica, anyway. Because that's what Scholem has said.

[DCHindley]

If you want to find what drove Festugière's animosity, I'd guess it derives from Gershom Scholem's Alchemie und Kabbala (1925).

IIUC, Festugière would like to interpret the philosophical texts in the greater corpus of the Hermetica in light of the alchemical tracts, which I am pretty sure Scholem did NOT analyze the same way (Scholem was super conservative in his approaches). That, and the tensions during and post WW2 related to Jewish emigration to UK controlled Palestine and the partition solution of the newly created UN. In French controlled portions of North Africa this was likely a subject of intense debates. My gut feeling is that Festugière projected some of that angst and anger towards Scholem.

My only serious exposure to the Hermetica are the volumes published by Walter Scott (4 vols 1924-1936), which many hate with a passion. It is sometimes hard to follow his disassembly and reassembly of segments of text to make better sense (to Scott), with all sorts of single and double brackets of varying kind (e.g., [ ], [[ ]]) to signify where pericopes were plucked and inserted.

I do remember Scott detecting traces of stories from Genesis in Poimandres and here and there in the other tracts, and discussions whether these twists to the traditional account of Genesis were due to Gnostic interpretations, which could involve Judean intellectuals. I did not get the impression that Jewish magic was even discussed other than in passing, although I could be wrrrrrooonng.

While I have not closely reviewed the alchemical Hermetica, I have read through them when my memory of college chemistry classes was fresh enough to try and figure out what was probably going on. IMHO, the Hermetic alchemists were merely guessing, based on external clues, what was going on to effect the changes in finish to metals and other items that they hoped ever so hardly to pass as gold, or silver even. Even Claudius Ptolemy, the source of much we know about ancient astronomy, understood things in the perspective of astrology, unless you believe that too ...

The Hermetic tracts appear to start showing up in the literary record at same time as Greek Magical Papyri. I think that the PGM does overlap with the "so called" Mithra liturgy. Yet, other than adopting Hermes as one of hundreds of deities to use in invocations, I did not see any use of the philosophical Hermetica, much less the alchemical.

Romantic notions feel good, but do they DO good? I am about the least romantic guy around (just ask my enduring wife). To me, they were concurrent movements, but without significant overlap of participants.

DCH

[DCHindley]

Speaking of the Mithras Liturgy:

"I invoke the immortal names, living and honored, which never pass into mortal nature and are not declared in articulate speech by human tongue or mortal speech or mortal sound: EEO OEEO IOO OE EEO EEO OE EO IOO OEEE OEE OOE IE EO OO OE IEO OE OOE IEO OE IEEO EE IO OE IOE OEO EOE OEO OIE OIE EO OI III EOE OYE EOOEE EO EIA AEA EEA EEEE EEE EEE IEO EEO OEEEOE EEO EYO OE EIO EO OE OE EE OOO YIOE.”
https://hermetic.com/pgm/mithras-liturgy

Those sounds, FWIW, were the sort of sounds that got Frank Zappa arrested for taping his grunting voice for a porn video sound track. It was a gig job.

I think the point of difference between those two revolved around the heavenly ascents of the Mithras Liturgy, its link to Hermetic and Greek and Merkabah ascent traditions, and how this came to influence Kabballah, something that is clearly medieval in origin (IMO).

To me, the phrase "old Jewish magicians of the Papyri" almost certainly meant the kind of magic with Jewish (and Hermetic, and Greek, and Roman, and pagans galore) themes in PGM. Scholem may have offered that statement as a wry witticism, and suggested that he felt that Festugière uncritical prejudices had influence the way he treated a fellow academic like himself.

DCH