Apocalypse of the Alien God. Dylan M. Burns
Читать онлайн книгу.
glimpse a diversity of “Platonic Orientalisms,” which evoke, distance, and assimilate a manufactured image of Eastern learning in order to stake out a position on the Hellenic identity that was so important for the context of philosophizing in the Roman Empire.
This turn to the East as a source of wisdom in Greek philosophy is commonly chalked up by historians of Roman religion to the infusion of new Oriental cults (of Serapis, Isis, Attis, and Cybele, etc.) into Roman religion;158 the result, a quasi-philosophical cultic “syncretism.”159 However, while these cults certainly were of great interest to those in educated circles and provided new points of reference in religious life, the Oriental cults are a red herring in the search for the significance of alien wisdom.160 Rather, the reach to the Eastern civilizations as a source of wisdom is as old as Greek literature itself. By the first century CE, the idea of “the ancients” became bound to the idea that the Stoic λόγος (rational principle), and all the knowledge concomitant with it, is to some extent incarnate in all things.161 Plutarch fully articulated this view (regarding divine providence): “Wherefore this very ancient opinion (παμπάλαιος) comes down from writers on religion and from lawgivers to poets and philosophers; it can be traced to no source, but it carried a strong and almost indelible conviction, and is in circulation in many places among barbarians and Greeks alike, not only in story and tradition, but also in rites and sacrifices.”162 Beyond the ethnographer’s natural interest in the exotic, these texts display an appreciation for the pedigree of Eastern civilizations; by virtue of their age, they must know something.163 Moreover, this single knowledge is consonant with that of the Greeks but expressed in variable myths and rites, humanity’s understanding of which is fading.164
With the turn of the second century, however, one begins to glimpse the subordination of this discourse about alien wisdom to the primacy of Plato and Pythagoras.165 At first glance, this subordination is masked by interest in discussing barbarian wisdom. The trope of scholarly pilgrimages to the Orient to obtain scientific and ritual knowledge is a fixture of the period’s literature. Diogenes Laertius relates that Thales spent time in Egypt with the priests and measured the pyramids.166 Pythagoras reportedly studied with “Zaratas” (Zoroaster),167 explored Egypt,168 and is assigned many travels by Apuleius.169 Porphyry has him study with the Phoenicians and Hebrews.170 Plato himself reportedly traveled to Egypt and wished to visit Persia and India.171 In Philostratus, the Theban Dionysius travels to India, and Protagoras is said to have studied with the Persian magi during Xerxes’ invasion of Greece.172 A great deal of the Life of Apollonius is occupied with philosophical pilgrimages to Babylon, India, and Egypt.173 Finally, Plotinus, too, tried to go to India—the only evidence of his interest in learning east of Egypt, hardly indicative of a debt to Indian thought.174
The study-sabbatical abroad was recommended by Hellenists in the early empire for two reasons.175 One is the presumption, based on Posidonius’s logos theology, that there exists a universal religion whose origin is prior to all contemporary civilization and whose evidence can be found among other, elder cultures.176 For Dio Chrysostom, as for Plutarch, God’s existence and benign rule is “a conception of him common to the whole human race, to the Greeks and to the barbarians alike, a conception that is inevitable and innate in every creature endowed with reason.”177 Lucian agrees that worship of the gods is universal, but adds that it originated among the Egyptians.178 We see a somewhat different principle, however, in Pseudo-Apollonius and Philostratus. Hellenism is necessarily cosmopolitan and therefore often found outside the geographical confines of Hellas itself, sometimes in a purer state.179 The question, then, is whether the universal religion is identified with Hellenism (as in Philostratus) or beyond it (with Plutarch et al.)
At the same time, second-century CE Greek philosophical literature remains deeply ambivalent about its relationship with Eastern teaching. In his Borysthentica, Dio Chrysostom details a myth composed by Zoroaster and preserved by the Magi both in song and “secret rites” (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις τελεταῖς), but also distances himself from the tale, on ethnic grounds;180 presumably, he relates the story to tantalize the barbarian (yet Hellenophile) Borysthenians.181 Meanwhile, Diogenes Laertius introduces his doxography by rejecting barbarian claims to archaic wisdom, even asserting that the first civilization was Greek civilization.182 While the Chaldeans, druids, Indians, and Persians were all innovators in astronomy, allegory, and ritual worship, he says, the first to actually worship the gods were primordial Greek ancestors, Musaeus and Linius. Philosophy began with Anaximander and Pythagoras; “thus it was from the Greeks that philosophy took its rise; its very name refused to be translated into barbarian speech.”183
Similar ambivalence is found in second-century Platonists—even Numenius, who as quoted above (fragment 1a) asserts that the wisdom of the barbarian nations is consonant with that of the Greeks.184 Some have asked if he particularly esteemed Judaism, or was even a Jew;185 after all, Numenius knew some Hebrew scripture, and probably read Philo.186 Yet only a superficial knowledge of Judaism is evident here. His supposed quotation of Ex 3:14—that God is ὁ μέν γε ὤν (“he who is”)—has been widely taken as evidence of deep interest in Judaism, but is textually problematic.187 However, Numenius elsewhere identifies Moses with “Musaeus,” Orpheus’s heir and founder of the Greek religion itself.188 Fragment 1a (quoted at the beginning of this section), meanwhile, emphasizes that the nations should only be consulted after the Platonists and Pythagoreans, and then only insofar as they agree with Plato.189 Most of Numenius’s extant fragments explicitly cite Hellenic authorities: Homer, Hesiod, the Orphic texts, Pherecydes, Parmenides, and the Eleusinian mysteries, and it is by the standard of these authorities that he judges other sources of wisdom.190
Celsus, too, invokes “an ancient doctrine which has existed from the beginning” among the barbarians but not the Jews.191 Yet Celsus does not explicitly set the philosophy of the Greeks over that of the alien nations, instead excluding Christianity and Judaism from “barbarian philosophy.” It is worth noting, however, that Celsus compares Christian faith to the credulity of charlatans from the Orient, and that when he refers to “ancient traditions” (πάλαι δεδογμένα) as the foundation of his teaching, he provides a summary of Plato.192
A similar range of views are in third-century sophistic and Platonic texts. Philostratus leaves open the possibility that Greeks can learn from other peoples, but never is Greek wisdom upstaged or altered, while the scope of interests of comparison remains firmly in the realm of Hellenic thought.193 Pythagoras and the Egyptians obtained the doctrine of the transmigration of souls from India;194 Egypt, India, and Pythagoras are all in agreement in the polemic against blood sacrifice.195 Notably, Palestine is mentioned only to be disparaged.196 Philostratus also makes explicitly negative references to barbarian wise men, mentioning Egyptian and Chaldean frauds who took advantage of the need for religious comfort after earthquakes west of the Hellespont.197 With his subject charged with being a sorcerer (μάγος) on account of the pilgrimages to Persian and Egyptian magi (μάγοι), Philostratus claims, as did Diogenes Laertius, that Empedocles, Pythagoras, and Plato all learned from the Orientals without becoming μάγοι themselves.198
Porphyry’s position on the Greek tradition in the context of ancient wisdom (παλαιά σοφία) is complex and at times appears contradictory. Some scholars focus on his derogatory comments about the Greeks as a relatively young and ineffectual culture in the face of ancient wisdom.199 In On the Cave of the Nymphs, he traces the use of caves as the first temples back to the consecration of Zoroaster, recalls Numenius’s citation of Gen 1:2, and discusses Egyptian symbolism.200 Just as Porphyry sometimes refers to Jesus positively as one of many representatives of the “ancient wisdom,” he includes the Jews in the ranks of barbarian races that have tapped into universal truths.201 Indeed, he appears to have sought a via universalis.202 At other times, however, he suggests that the philosopher (assuming already the adoption of