MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science 2014 PREPRINT 454 TOPOI – Dahlem Seminar for the History of Ancient Sciences Vol. II Klaus Geus and Mark Geller (eds.) Esoteric Knowledge in Antiquity TOPOI – Dahlem Seminar for the History of Ancient Sciences The Dahlem Seminar for the History of Ancient Sciences is an initiative resulting from cooperation between the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, and the Topoi Excellence Cluster. Future events are intended to foster stronger links between scholars at the Max Planck Institute, Freie Universität and Humboldt Universität, under the overall aegis of the Topoi Excellence Cluster. The Dahlem Seminar for the History of Ancient Sciences, under the direction of Klaus Geus and Mark Geller, organises an annual colloquium series on various innovative themes in ancient scholarship and knowledge transfer. Content Chapter 1: Esoteric Knowledge in Antiquity – Some Thoughts Mark Geller & Klaus Geus . 3 Chapter 2: Secret of Extispicy Revealed Netanel Anor . 7 Chapter 3: Scenes with Two Bes Figures from Nimrudand the Second Step of Bes Toward Globalisation Adrienn Orosz . 21 Chapter 4: Near Eastern origins of Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy Matteo Martelli / Maddalena Rumor . 37 Chapter 5: Traum und Raum in den Onesikritika des Artemidoros von Daldis Gregor Weber . 63 Chapter 6: On the Use and Abuse of Philosophy for Life: John Chrysostom’s Paradoxical View of Knowledge Jan R. Stenger . 85 Chapter 7: Esoterisches Wissen im Platonismus und in der christlichen Gnosis Christoph Markschies . 107 Chapter 8: Priesterliches Kultwissen in den philensischen Graffiti des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Jan Moje . 121 Chapter 9: Ein syrischer Hermes? Anmerkungen zu esoterischen Traditionen im syrischen Medizinbuch Stefanie Rudolf . 149 Chapter 10: Self-Knowledge, Illumination and Natural Magic: Some Notes on Pico della Mirandola’s Esotericism and Its Ancient Sources Adrian Pirtea . 167 About the Authors . 199 1 CHAPTER 1 ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE IN ANTIQUITY – SOME THOUGHTS Mark Geller & Klaus Geus Freie Universität Berlin One benefit of an interdisciplinary approach is the surprising result which can follow from the confrontation of the same idea between disciplines. A case in point is the concept of ‘esoteric knowledge’, to which the present collection of articles is devoted, which will trace the frame- work of esoteric knowledge from Babylonia to Greece and into Christian thought, highlight- ing similarities and differences within each episteme. The journey is rather crooked and full of potholes. Moreover, the expression ‘esoteric’ is used today rather indiscriminately. Within the category of ‘esoteric knowledge’ one understands a variety of related expressions, such as ‘mystical’ or ‘occult’, as well as the more concrete ‘absolute’ or ‘elevated’ knowledge, which can also be considered as ‘hidden’, ‘secret’, or ‘inaccessible’, and even ‘fanciful’ or carried away. The confused pattern of such definitions advocates a look at the historical development this concept. The term ‘esoteric’ originates from the Greek for ‘inner’, not however with the sense of ‘psychic’, ‘spiritual’, or ‘mystical’, but with a purely local meaning of being ‘further with- in’ something. The antonym is ‘exoteric’, namely ‘external’. There is no corresponding ter- minology in Babylonia, although the concept of knowledge exclusively reserved for scholars increasingly appeared in colophons of cuneiform tablets emanating from the scribal acad- emies and royal libraries, such as that of Assurbanipal of Nineveh (mid 7th century BCE). These colophons make the matter quite explicit: revealing the contents of a particular acade- mic tablet to someone uninitiated (literally ‘not knowledgeable’) is a taboo of a god. But what kind of composition contains such hidden (or esoteric) knowledge? This question is not easy to answer. On one hand there are neither terms for or any tex- tual evidence for ‘esoteric’ versus ‘exoteric’ knowledge, since neither category is defined, al- though there is an implicit assumption of ‘insiders’ (lit. mudû ‘learned’) and ‘outsiders’ (lit. la mudû, ‘not learned’) among possible readers of the tablets. Beyond this crude distinction in colophons, there are references to secret knowledge or lore often associated with divination, such as niširti bārûti, ‘secrets of the art of the haruspex’, and such secrets were occasionally associated with a particular location, namely the bīt mummi. This place was originally the 3 Mark Geller & Klaus Geus secluded workshop in a temple where idols were either repaired or manufactured, accessible only by priests skilled in this type of sensitive work, and even if only a metaphor, the bīt mummi clearly distinguishes between insiders and outsiders. In fact, it was likely that all disciplines maintained this distinction between those who were mudû and la mudû, between initiated and uninitiated, in a particular discipline. What is not clear is whether these terms could refer to other scribes or scholars not trained in a spe- cific discipline (e.g. astronomy/ astrology, medicine, liturgy), or whether the phrase was sim- ply meant to exclude anyone who was generally thought to be unschooled. We have little in- formation about any serious rivalry or competition between scribal academies, either in differ- ent cities or temples, or even between scribes who were experts in specific areas of knowl- edge. Academically animosities probably existed then as it does now, but clear statements of such are hard to find. There are Sumerian and Akkadian compositions from scribal academies which appear to reflect esoteric or mystical knowledge, on a par with later Kabbalistic writings, and these are obvious candidates for defining a category of esoteric texts; they remain virtually impos- sible to comprehend, but they refer to themes such as the Chariot of Marduk which remarka- bly reflect something of the Merkavah Mysticism of medieval Jewish texts. Such texts are exceptional and do not represent the full range of academic compositions most often prohib- ited to the uninitiated. As is so often the case in Mesopotamia, we are not guided by any an- cient secondary literature or philosophical treatises, which would help pave the way for us to comprehend ancient Sumerian and Akkadian scholarly writings; the commentary texts which we have (also ‘esoteric’) are themselves frustratingly cryptic and abbreviated. Nevertheless, the contrast between Babylonian and Greek concepts of what constitutes such knowledge is rather revealing. The Greek expressions for esoteric and exoteric were mostly employed in reference to ancient mystery cults, such as the Eleusinian mysteries or Mithra-cults, in which one must first be ‘consecrated’ in a special ceremony and afterwards is prohibited to reveal any of the knowledge acquired during the initiation, under pain of death. This constitutes ‘secret knowledge’ in a real way. From ancient mystery cults, the concepts of esoteric and exoteric knowledge spread to Greek philosophical schools. Exactly in the same way that initiation was instituted among these cults which mandated a special, secret kind of knowledge, so Greek philosophical schools of Pythagoras and Plato conveyed special kinds of knowledge and teachings among their closest disciples which were not to be communicated to others. These privileged students 4 Esoteric Knowledge in Antiquity were known as ‘Esotericists’, while all those beyond the immediate circle of the initiated were known as ‘Exotericists’; Pythagoreans also recognised the esoteric categories of mathematics and acousmatics. Modern usage has reversed these relationships, at least as far as the value of knowl- edge is concerned, since in contemporary language ‘esoteric’ almost exclusively reflects fan- ciful and speculative knowledge. We must therefore distinguish between original ancient con- cepts in which ‘esoteric’ implies higher, deeper, and even better knowledge, in contrast to to- day’s understanding of esoteric as secret, marginal, and relatively worthless knowledge. These concepts of esoteric and exoteric have undergone a profound change of perspective in the course of the history of these terms. Science per se is perceived as a set of rules derived from abstract propositions. Begin- ning with empirical observation, carried out under specific conditions, scientists propose causal relationships, e.g. if someone does A, then B will result. These kinds of causal relation- ships may also offered by priests and shamans, by sticking needles into a voodoo doll or toss- ing fingernails into a fire in order to cause harm to one’s enemies or rivals, or alternatively if an astrologer associates events in a person’s life with the sun’s progress through the Zodiac. On the other hand, a Christian believer might see miracles in a similar light, as expressions of some higher or divinely inspired knowledge, which would allow healing to take place at the mere touch or presence of a famous personage or saint, such as Simeon Stylites. The question is how to balance such claims within the various frameworks of ancient thought. Here distinc- tions can be made between different types of healing or magical events, such as healing through technical rituals, recitations of incantations, or therapeutic prescriptions (all esoteric knowledge of sorts), verses the direct inspirational healing of a famous wonderworker, such as Apollonius of Tyana. How, in such cases, can we distinguish between esoteric and exoteric