Re: Herodotus, to PMCV
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>Hey Fred, thanks for posting this. While I doubt that I will bejoining the Egyptian club anytime soon, this does give us an idea of
what is going on there. This post is well written, but it does fall
victim to some fundemental errors. What is more, if we look at it
carefully we see that no where in this post is there any mention of
transmigration in any tradtional Egyptian texts, it is only an
arguement as to why we might take our Greek source at face value. This
still does not help us, but it is interesting none the less. Let me
deal with a couple of specific snippets....<
This is simply not true. Did you bother to read the whole post before
replying? The writer does mention some specific "traditional Egyptian
texts," namely: The Book of the Dead (BD 76-88), The Coffin Texts (CT
105), and The Book of the Dead (BD 188). In these texts the writer's
argument hinges on the translation of a specific hieroglyph, i.e, /irt
xprw/, which could indicate a belief by the Egyptians in
metempsychosis. There is still quite a lot of scholarly debate about
the correct translation of this hieroglyph. It has variously been
translated as: "make transformation into," "assume the form of," or
"to be reborn." Contra these translations, other Egyptologists define
this hieroglyph in more mundane expressions: "to be born," "brought
up," or "educated." The argument is still not settled, but a good
argument can be made for the former translations, which is mentioned
in further posts on this subject in the Amun group. Some Egyptologists
also discuss certain specific translations in The Pyramid Texts, but
herein lies the problem: If you want to peruse the archives of this
group, you have to join it. Since you have chosen not to do this, it
is obvious to me that you haven't looked at any of these posts. If you
refuse to even look at the evidence, I can't see how you can seriously
make the claim of using a correct methodology of historical criticism.
A couple of comments on a few of your other statements:
--- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>>Lloyd states, "Herodotus is certainly mistaken in attributing the
Greek doctrine of _palingenesia_ to the Egyptians. His error, like
many others, is to be explained by the _post hoc ergo propter hoc_
fallacy ....The belief in transmigration seems to have developed
independently in many parts of the world and there is no reason to
believe that it was a foreign import into Greece where it maintained
itself in some form until the establishment of Christianity....
During, and before, the time of Herodotus it was particularly
associated with Pythagoras, Empedocles and the Orphics. Pythagoras and
his followers taught that the souls of men could be reincarnated in
animals, a doctrine which presumably arose from the conviction of the
kinship of all living things..."<<
>This is the general academic view. It is a view that no one here has
answered (though I have repeatedly asked George to do so). There
simply is no reason to assume there must be some alien source to these
beliefs, which is why it is absolutely important to demonstrate an
influence before defying Occams Razor. An internal consistancy has
already been demonstrated that shows there is no need for an external
source for the belief in transmigration, no need to multipy enteties.<
Well, we agree as to what the general academic view is, but I would
challenge this assumption that we have no need to postulate an alien
source of a belief in metempsychosis, in other words, the idea that
metempsychosis developed indigenously in the Greek environment, as it
did in some other cultures. Edward Hussey, in his book The
Presocratics, discusses the belief of transmigration of souls in the
teaching of Pythagoras and states that it was a completely new and
original view in Greek thought. This is why many scholars are
postulating an outside source for the views. There been quite a lot of
scholarly research that the beliefs were influenced by the practices
of Scythian shamans, or possibly Thracian sources. This too is an
unsettled debate, but if we accept that these beliefs are of an alien
source in Greek thought, why not accept the view of so many Classical
writers, and Christian polemicists too, who do not mention Scythia as
the source for these beliefs in Pythgoras, but name Egypt as the
source? Hussey also makes the point that many other of the Milesian
Presocratics resided on a major trade route where they were likely to
come into contact with Middle Eastern, as well as Egyptian travelers.
So the Presocratics were well positioned to develop an Egyptology.
Hussey says the Middle Eastern influences on Greek thought have long
been overlooked, and require further research.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>>He is referring to the tale told immediately before (II.122) about a
king Rhampsinitus descending alive into Hades (=Amenta), playing dice
with Demeter (=Isis), sometimes winning, sometimes losing, then
returning to earth again. The Egyptians instituted a festival in honor
of this event. We can recognize in the outlines of this tale parallels
to the Osirian Festival of Khoiak. There are also similarities to the
Tale of Setne Khaemwas where we find the priest in a tomb playing
draughts with a ghost (Lichtheim, _AEL_, III, p.132ff.)<<
>I would like to point out the obvious here. We already see the
syncratic impatus that was to later become "Hellenization" in
Heroditus' desire to speak in terms of the Greek pantheon. How much of
a jump is it for him to also apply Greek interpretation? Instead, it
is highly likely that he did.<
Herodotus was writing for a popular Greek audience who knew
practically nothing about Egypt, but had an insatiable thirst for news
about this new culture that they were coming into contact with. It is
understandable that H would try to make the bewildering array of
Egyptian gods and practices comprehensible to them by relating them to
the familiar Greek pantheon. Having said this though, it was also H's
belief that the Greek pantheon came from the Egyptian pantheon, and H
was not the first writer to notice the similarity between Osiris/Isis
myths with the Demeter myths. Plutarch said that they are the same.
For H to discover these similarities, I believe that he would have had
to talk to the bilingual Egyptian priest/scribes who would have been
eager to make their culture understandable to the Greeks, and
explained the Isis myth to H. How else would H have learned enough
about Isis to make this comparison? It was more than mere syncretism.
There is one instance where both Isis and Demeter place a baby in a
fire to purify it and turn it into a god. This seems much too specific
an example of the similarity in the myths to account for it by a
chance similarity in gods that arose in both cultures independently.
- The Middle region, when you separate the light from the darkness
you enter into the Twilight Zone, the World of the Imagination,
Freedom of Mind, Divine Will.
To Truly be Good you must be Free from the knowledge, from having
known, experienced wrong doing, you must be innocent.
Innocence exists only when there is no Evil, a long as Evil exist
Good is Evil and Evil is good, there is no innocence.
In between the Light and the Darkness, Parallel Universes, the Two
Worlds of Reality, One the World of Reality as seen in the light of
day, the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now, Reality that exists
independent of our thoughts concerning it and the World of the
Imagination, the middle World, the World of Illusion, Sin; Reality as
seen in the Second light of the Sun, Moon Light, where thinly veiled
shadowy figures lurk in the Darkest corners of the Mind.
By the light of the Silvery Moon, Light that is separated out of the
Darkness, Twice light.
Illusion Trice Light, Reality hauled up out of the darkest depths of
the abyss, the imagination.
A Lie is the Truth, an Illusion is a Reality, Evil is Good, Good is
Evil, Good and Evil is Evil.
Yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, pessy@c... wrote:be
> > lady_caritas writes:
> > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
> > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
> > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
> > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
> > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
> > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception ofbe
> > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
> > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
> > > an initiation process or even a Valentinian not entirely
> convinced or
> > > in agreement about the concepts of good and evil? Regardless,
> > > think we can at least glean some Valentinian ideas from thisthis
> > > as it speaks to hylic, psychic, and pneumatic natures, and it
> > > certainly reiterates a common theme of resurrection now in
> > > lifetime, not waiting for some later time.last
> > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
> > whereas Zoroastrians see good and bad residing in the world.
> > Klaus Schilling
> Klaus, I suppose that is also a very likely interpretation. (My
> sentence of that paragraph was referring not only to the line justthought
> previously discussed about "good" and "evil," but to other comments
> in the GPh passage as a whole.) However, I guess my point was,
> perhaps we could only assume the line related to Zoroastrian
> when no direct mention is made of them and we don't even know theOr
> original source or context of this whole passage. And, where does
> the passage say that this world is only "evil," as you interpret?
> do you think it is implied somehow?fit
> Also, considering your interpretation of that line, how does that
> within the context of the remainder of the passage, with the author
> defining the "midpoint" -- "**after** this world" -- as "evil"?