A hymn to Inana (Inana F): translation

(Any writing in Bold Type, in Parenthesis, in Italics, & pictures are added by me, R. Brown, not the author!)

(gods in blue)

1-3 My father gave me the heavens and he gave me the earth.

I am Inana (Inanna)! Which god compares with me?

4-13 Enlil gave me the heavens and he gave me the earth.

I am Inana! He gave me lordship, and he gave me queenship.

            3ma - Inanna & Enlil goddess

                   (Enlil had Inanna instructed on many alien battle-skills, later witnessed by earthlings)

         He gave me battles and he gave me fighting.

         He gave me the storm wind and he gave me the dust cloud (alien flying machines).

         He placed the heavens on my head as a crown.

         He put the earth at my feet as sandals.

              (Inanna given sky-disc & more by King Anu, & granted much by grandfather Enlil, the Earth Colony Commander)

         He wrapped the holy ma garment around my body.

         He put the holy scepter in my hand.

14-17 The gods are small birds, but I am the falcon.

The Anuna (Anunnaki) mill about, but I am the good wild cow,

I am the good wild cow of father Enlil, his good wild cow which walks in front.

                (E-kur, Enlil‘s temple / residence, Anunnaki Command Post in Nippur)

18-20 When I enter the E-kur, the house of Enlil,

the gate-keeper does not lift his hand against my breast; the minister does not tell me, “Rise!”.

21-33 The heavens are mine and the earth is mine: I am heroic!

In Unug (Uruk) the E-ana (temple – residence) is mine,

in Zabalam the Giguna (more temples – residences, personal hotel) is mine,

in Nibru (Nippur, Inanna provided a residence in each city of gods) the Dur-an-ki is mine,

in Urim (Ur) the E-Dilmun is mine,

in Jirsu the Ecdam-kug is mine,

in Adab the E-cara is mine,

in Kic (Kish) the Hursaj-kalama is mine,

in Kisiga the Amac-kuga is mine,

in Akcak the Anzagar is mine,

in Umma the Ibgal is mine,

in Agade the Ulmac is mine.

Which god compares with me?

34 A …… of Inana.

A hymn to Inana

(Any writing in Bold Type, in Parenthesis, in Italics, & pictures are added by me, R. Brown, not the author!)

(gods in blue)

1-9. Lady ……!

Returning heroic youth, Inana …….

2c - Nippur

(Enlil‘s mud brick-built E-kur ruins in Nippur)

At the shrine, in Nibru (Nippur), in the E-du-kug …… by An (Anu),

with the holy crown of An placed on her head, the most holy ba garment of An draped around her torso,

and the holy scepter of An placed in her hand — seated on a seat in the assembly,

rendering great judgments in the mountains, and reaching majestic decisions in all the lands!


3 - nude Inanna in flight

(Inanna, Anunnaki pilot, Goddess of Love)

10-16. Holy Inana gazes as she shines (?) down from heaven like a light.


     (Nannar‘s house with city of Ur way below it, featuring the original “stairway to heaven“)

Together with her father Suen (Sin / Nannar / El),

the mistress issues commands to the E-kiš-nu-ĝal of Urim (Ur).

In her hands she holds prosperity for all the lands.

The lady …….

Holy Inana …….

17-22. ……, you are endowed with beauty,

5 lines fragmentary

23-29. You are she who raises …… in their prayers.

You are she who displays shining cornelian from the mountains to be admired.

Bringing shining lapis lazuli from the bright mountain on special rafts,

you are she who, like fire, melts (?) gold from Ḫarali.

You are she who creates apples in their clusters (?).

You are she who demands …….

You are she who creates the date spadices in their beauty.


(earthling bringing the abundance directly to Inanna in Uruk)

30-44. (Inana speaks:)

“When I was living in my dwelling place, when I was living in An’s dwelling,

2b - Dumuzi the shepherd1ba-inanna-spouse-dumuzi

(Dumuzi the Shepherd;  Inanna & spouse Dumuzi)

my lover Ušumgal-ana (Dumuzi) called upon me to be his wife.

In Bad-tibira (Dumuzi’s city), from the E-muš-kalama, …… for his crown.”

6 lines fragmentary or unclear

…… his assembly, and brought …… into her holy shrine for her brother Ušumgal-ana.


45-54. (Inana speaks:)

“…… stands ……. Dumuzid (Dumuzi) stands in beauty like an ildag tree.

(young lovers Inanna & spouse Dumuzi the Shepherd)

I will fill my heart with joy.

The one who makes food plentiful …… in Du-šuba (?).

My heart is filled with joy, …… in heaven and earth.

The house of Arali …….”

3 lines fragmentary or unclear

…… the houses in the broad streets.

One blank line on the tablet


55-121. approx. 67 lines missing or fragmentary


(Inanna sits upon her resident-throne, seemingly in every city & everywhere)

122-123. Holy Inana, your august ……!

…… Inana be praised!



Posted in religious themes | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment


(ΣΥΝΕΧΕΙΑ ΑΠΟ 15/03/18)



Posted in Books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment



The dispute over authenticity and antiquity

The interest aroused by the discoveries of the Qumran manuscripts was immense,
right from the start. This interest was provoked for reasons which are
easy to understand. The mere fact that they were biblical texts or connected
with the bible, that they were actually found on biblical soil and were not less
than two thousand years old, placed them in a unique position. Since the discoveries included many biblical manuscripts copied at a time prior to the formation of the canon and the standardization of the biblical text, and before the
work of the Masoretes, to study them would allow the process of development
and fixing of the biblical text to be known It would also assist in checking or
correcting the great mediaeval codices which are the foundation ofour Hebrew
Given, too, that the manuscripts included a large number of extra-biblical
compositions, they would fill a huge gap in our knowledge of pre-Christian
Jewish literature. It is true that part of this literature was known, owing to
translations preserved in a wide range of languages, but there were no original
manuscripts. A cursory look at the material which provides the foundation for
the historical dictionary of the Academy of the Hebrew Language for the years
100 bce to 70 CE, 56 shows that almost all the literary texts in Hebrew for this
period derive from the Qumran finds. The same applies to Aramaic texts,
also. 57 The new discoveries, in providing us with part of pre-Christian Jewish
literature in Hebrew and Aramaic, promised to close the existing gap between
Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew and between the Aramaic of Elephantine and
Targumic Aramaic.
In addition, and for the first time, we would own a whole range of religious
compositions which had reached us directly, absolutely devoid of any later
interference. Since the texts had been preserved at the fringes of conventional
life, they reached us free from the restraints of censorship. To a large extent
Jewish censorship had suppressed religious literature which did not comply
with rabbinic orthodoxy; Christian censorship would have assimilated some of
these works, but after modifying them for their own purposes.
Since the new manuscripts stem from Palestine and are earlier in date than
the destruction of Jerusalem, study of them promises to resolve the complex
history of the country at this critical time. Also, since this time is a period of
development both for Christianity and for Rabbinic Judaism, the new texts will
make the background, origins and development of these two important religions

However, this very intrinsic interest of the new texts immediately unleashed
a bitter conflict over whether they were genuine. Although today this conflict
is no more than a curiosity of the past, it is useful to rehearse briefly the attitudes
w hich marked the history of research into these manuscripts in the first
decades after their discovery.

It was natural, of course, that the apparition of the first manuscripts was
received with a degree of mistrust over whether they were genuine and really
old. The preservation of manuscripts as old as these was not believed possible,
and there have been a great number of forgeries throughout history. The very
secrecy and uncertainties shrouding the discoveries could only increase misgivings.
Although most of the scholarly community assumed an enthusiastic attitude,
already by 1949 there was no lack of opinion stating emphatically that they
were recent forgeries. According to S.Zeitlin, the manuscripts had been written
by the Karaites in the Middle Ages, in an attempt to assume distinguished
forbears. They came from the Karaite synagogue in Cairo and had been hidden
in the caves shortly before they were discovered. 58 Archaeological excavation
under scientifically controlled conditions of the caves in which they were
found, and fragments of manuscripts which belonged to the same texts acquired
from the bedouin, provided a formal refutation of the accusations of
forgery and fraud. Likewise, analysis of the pottery excavated provided proof
of the antiquity of the texts connected with them, since it was difficult for this
pottery to be later than the first century. The conclusive proof concerning date
was given by analysis using the method known as Carbon 14. The cloths which
had been used to wrap the manuscripts were analysed in this way in 1950, and
the result given was a date up to the year 33 of the 1st century ce. 59 In 1956 a
charred palm-tree balk found during excavation of the Khirbet underwent the
same analysis, providing a date of up to 16 CE. 60
It is true that the margins of error available by this method in the fifties were still large (about 200 years in the first instance and some 80 years in the second). However it did establish the date of the cloths between 1 68 bce and 233 ce, eliminating conclusively the likelihood of recent forgeries.
The analytical method by progressive shrinkage of the parchment fibres
according to their antiquity was applied to uninscribed fragments from both
Qumran and Murabbac at. It proved that the first were relatively older than the
second. Since the latter were dated to the 2nd century ce, the dating of the
former to the 1st century ce was established/11
The same date in the first century (ce) was established by analysis of the
biblical texts found in the caves and from their divergences from the biblical
texts found in Murabbac at and Nahal Hever. The second group presented a
biblical text virtually identical with the Masoretic text. The biblical texts from
Qumran, however, still reflect in a very clear manner the textual fluidity prior
to the final fixed form and for that very reason were earlier.

This first century ce date for the manuscripts, however, still did not completely
exclude their origin to be either the Zealots or Judaeo-Christian.
The first theory was maintained by C. Roth,62 G. R. Driver63 and others. In
essence, both Roth and Driver equated the leading figures in the history of the Qumran community with the leading figures of the Jewish revolt against Rome.
They suggested dating the manuscripts to the second half of the first century
CE and in the first half of the second century ce, the same period as the New
Testament writings.
The second theory was maintained in the fifties by J. L. Teicher64 and has
been revived quite recently by B. E. Thiering65 and R. Eisenman.66 The discrepancies in detail between these writers are remarkable, and so are the individuals with whom they identify the principal characters. (The Teacher of
Righteousness would be Jesus and the Wicked Priest, Paul; or the Teacher of
Righteousness would be John the Baptist, the Wicked Priest, Jesus of Nazareth;
the Teacher of Righteousness would be the apostle James, the Wicked
Priest Ananias, and the Man of Lies, Paul). However, common to all these
theories is denial of the conclusions reached by archaeological investigation,
which infers that all the manuscripts were deposited in the caves (and by the
same token, were written) prior to the destruction of Khirbet Qumran in 68 ce.
Above all, these theories deny the conclusions from palaeographic analysis of
the manuscripts. This shows that they were all copied between the third century
bce and the final quarter of the ist century ce. In particular, the proof
from palaeography used in dating the manuscripts has been the target of attack
and disagreement.

At the start of analysis of the Qumran manuscripts, Hebrew palaeography
for ancient times had not advanced very much, for lack of comparative material.
In actual fact, it amounted to no more than W. F. Albright’s detailed analysis
of the Nash Papyrus in 1937.
67 His analysis had succeeded in dating this text by means of comparing its script with the forms of letters in inscriptions on stone of the period, and it had caused Trever to acknowledge as ancient the first manuscripts which the American School was offered. The avalanche of new material, some of which, like the Samaria papyri and the contracts and letters from Murabbac at were actually dated, enabled a typology of the evolution of the different kinds of script between the 4th c bce and the 3rd ce to be drawn up for the first time. This work was undertaken initially by S. A. Birnbaum,hs and much more comprehensively and exactly by N. Avigad69 and F. M. Cross.70

The results led to establishing the date on which a manuscript
was copied with margins of error of about 25 years. However, it was a new field
of research, with results which were difficult to check objectively. (In order to
make an analysis by means of the Carbon 14 method it was necessary to use
between 1 and 3 grams of carbon. This entailed destroying a significant part of
each manuscript). Accordingly, the attacks by Thiering and by Eisenman in
particular focused on the dates suggested for the different manuscripts, since
these totally exclude their interpretation. Luckily, the discovery of a new technique
in 198771 (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) reduced the amount of material
needed to be destroyed for analysis using the Carbon 14 method to 0.5- 1.0 milligrams of carbon. The method could now be applied directly to the manuscripts
to establish whether the dates put forward by the palaeographers were
correct or not. In i99°> this new technique was used on 14 manuscripts. Four
contained dates (a papyrus from Samaria, a contract from Wadi Seiyal, a deed
of sale from Murabbac at and an Arabic letter from Khirbet Mird), eight manuscripts came from Qumran which the palaeographers had dated between the
second half of the 2nd century bce and the first half of the 1st century ce, and
two others stemmed from Masada. 72

The results of this analysis have completely substantiated the method ofdating by palaeography.73 This new analysis has shown that not one of the manuscripts from Qumran and Masada was copied after 68 ce. It has also shown that the much earlier dates ascribed to some manuscripts by the palaeographers were completely vindicated. In all the samples analysed, the palaeographic date falls within the date margins reached by the analytical methods. /+ These latest analytical techniques eliminate once and for all the theories of a Zealot or Jewish-Christian origin for the manuscripts.
The manuscripts found in the Qumran caves can now be regarded as ancient
and genuine beyond any kind of doubt.

If the reader scans attentively the ‘List of Qumran manuscripts’, located at the
end of this book, he cannot fail to realize that in spite of the high number of
compositions it reflects, the contents as a whole are surprisingly uniform. If
you append a separate section in which to place all the manuscripts which are
copies of the various biblical books, all the remaining texts could easily be contained in any one of the chapters making up this book. It comprises only religious literature, with no room for ‘secular’ literature. The reader will find there
neither purely historical works nor scientific works. The compositions closest
to this category, such as the calendars or the astronomical works included in
chapter 8, (as well as 4 QBrontologion), are pervaded by clear religious purposes
and have been written and preserved for liturgical reasons, or for the ordering
of religious life. Even when within some works ‘scientific’ details are included
(such as the list of trees in 4 QEnoch, or the explanation for the circulation of
the blood in one copy of 4 qd) the religious purpose of these details is always
to be found in the foreground. It is not, in fact, a library in the modern meaning
of the term, i.e., a store for all the knowledge of a period, but is instead a
specifically religious library. And since, among the works it contains, a significant
number can be classified as representing sectarian theology and customs,
we can describe this library as a sectarian library.
All the manuscripts found in the caves belong to the same library, as becomes
evident from the following facts. The collection of topics found in each
cave (to the extent that the texts could be salvaged) has the same general outline:
75 biblical works, associated religious literature, sectarian works. The very
same apocryphal and sectarian compositions have been retrieved from different
caves. Several manuscripts found in different caves were copied by the same

It is not a private library, as is apparent from the high number of works it
contains and also because (at least in Caves 1, 2, 4 and 11) different copies of
the same composition, whether biblical or extra-biblical texts, have been found.
This library belonged to a group of people with their central community in
the ruins of Qumran, as has been adequately established by archaeological excavations.
These show the pottery found both in the caves and in the ruins to
be identical, differing completely from other Palestinian pottery of the period.
The proof that this group of people was a sect comes from the subject matter
of certain works widely represented in the library. These compositions exhibit
a halakhah which differs from the rest of Judaism. They also follow a calendar
which is different from the current calendar76 and include new theological approaches.
In addition they exhibit clearly a tightly structured community with
a hierarchical organization, the members of which considered themselves to be
different from others, to have isolated themselves from the rest ofcontemporary Judaism. What is even more significant, it is a community forbidding and
avoiding any contact with non-members.
It is obvious that not all the manuscripts found in the caves originate from
Qumran. Although many of the biblical manuscripts seem to have been copied
in the scriptorium of the community, and some have even been copied by the
same scribes who also copied other sectarian works, no-one has ever thought
of ascribing a Qumranic origin to any of the biblical texts. The same applies to
specific non-biblical works, the oldest copies of which are much earlier than
the settlement of the group in Qumran. In fact the same is true of some sectarian
works, known in a ‘Qumranic’ edition but with a long history of development
that seems to demand for some of its elements an origin prior to the existence
of the community as such. Several other compositions offer no typical
features which enable their origin to be determined with certainty. However,
due to the separatist nature of the community, the mere fact of belonging to
the group library convinces us that the community considered them to be basically
in agreement with its principles, with its halakhah and even with its tenets.
The spectrum of ideas reflected in these works seems to have caused no
more problems than the variety of ideas present within the books of the bible.
In view of the exclusive nature of the community and the reiterated ban on
relations with ‘the others’ it is hardly surprising that among the abundance of
compositions preserved, not one has been found which could be judged as
epitomising the thought, the halakhah or the traditions of a counter-group, even
for the purposes of argument or rebuttal. Clearly, a group that persisted for
centuries could not have maintained a monolithic uniformity throughout its
whole history. It must have undergone intense development in its theology, its
halakhah and in its very organization. And, indeed, in the different texts or in
the various editions of a single work, there are numerous hints of this development.
However, perusal of all the manuscripts recovered has not succeeded in
bringing to light any composition which dissents from the basic principles, the
calendar or the halakhah of the group. The wide variety that can be observed
is always kept within specified limits. This allows us to conclude that all the
works which were retrieved belong to the longer history of the sect. Or else
they were kept because the sect saw in them confirmation of their prehistory,
of the religious movements which influenced their development and nourished
their origins, forming part of the legacy within which, as in the various biblical
books, the sect identifies itself.

This global view of the discoveries has recently been questioned in various
studies by N. Golb. 77 In his view it is apparently implausible that Jewish literature
of the period could have been irretrievably lost, while the library of a sectarian
group could have fallen into our hands. Wishing to recover vanished
treasure, Golb is resolved to suppress any connection between the manuscripts vfrom the caves and the group which lived in the area around the ruins. He
claims that these manuscripts stem from various libraries in Jerusalem and
therefore represent the rich literary activity ofJudaism at that time. 78 However,
such conjectures do not take into account the solid data gained from archaeological
excavation, nor do they explain the uniform content of the texts found.
They do not explain, either, the typical lack of any work which could represent
halakhah or the ideas of the Pharisees, ideas which were to be prevalent in Judaism after 70 ce It achieves no more than shift to Jerusalem and make even
more difficult the resolution of the problems which the manuscripts display.
Since I have given a detailed rebuttal of the Golb’s arguments in other publications,
79 there is no need to emphasize the matter. It might appear to be an
irony of history that we possess a very great deal more information concerning
a small group of fanatical separatists, who lived in seclusion in the middle of
the desert than we do concerning the many well-stocked libraries which there
must undoubtedly have been in Jerusalem. However, at heart this irony is no
more astounding than the fact that we possess more documentary data concerning
the tiny Jewish colony set up in Elephantine than we do of Western learning
which at one time was housed in the library of Alexandria. The luck of
discovery has no regard for the logic of our own interests. Yet the fortuitous
nature of the discovery of the manuscripts does not undermine the conclusion
that what we have retrieved comprises the remains of the former library of the
Qumran community.

Granted that the manuscripts retrieved stem from the library of a sectarian
group, the first requirement in providing them with a specific historic background
is to establish which group in particular they came from. This group
(or groups) is denoted by various names in the manuscripts: yahad (community),
cedah (assembly), etc. Its members are called ‘sons of Zadok’, ‘sons of
light’, ‘members of the New Covenant’, ‘poor’, ‘simple’, ‘devout’, ‘the Many’,
etc. In other words, the epithets to be found in the actual manuscripts do not
provide us with the opportunity of identifying easily the group to which the
library belonged with any one of the sectarian groups which, as far as we know,
existed. It follows that the method which all scholars have been obliged to
adopt, Is to compare all the data known through other sources concerning the
existing groups within the Judaism of the period, with the profile of the group
that can be extrapolated from the various manuscripts. This task is not without
risks. It is easy to favour one or other of the elements found, considered, perhaps,
as central, making secondary all other aspects which are difficult to fit,
and so distort the picture to emerge. However, the procedure has had positive
results which can be regarded as well established.
In the first place, it has shown that the Qumran community cannot possibly
be identified with the Zealots of the Jewish-Christian community since neither
the chronological outline nor the resulting profile fits.
Second, it has determined that of the three best-known groups of Judaism
in the mid-second century bce until the time of the destruction of Qumran in
68 CE (the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes), the group most closely
resembling the Qumran group is indeed the Essenes. Furthermore, the similarities
between what classical sources tell us about the Essenes80 and the information
provided by the manuscripts are so close, that it would be impossible to
deny a strong connection between the Qumran group and the Essenes.8 ‘
This connection is usually understood as a simple equation between the
elements in question: Essenes = Qumran group. However, this equation is impossible. 82

The genuine parallels do require a connection between the two entities,
but there are differences between them of such a nature as to preclude
them being identical. The information on the Essenes provided by classical
sources is correct in describing the Essene movement as very extensive, even
nationwide. Its members did not live segregated from the rest of Judaism but
instead were found distributed in every city of the land. To reduce Essenism
to a peripheral oddity such as Qumran would be to leave unexplained non-
Qumranic Essenism, a wider and more significant phenomenon than the phenomenon of Qumran.

It is possible to account for the undeniable similarities and the differences,
which are just as valid, by invoking another form of connection between the two groups. 83 The Qumran manuscripts make constant reference to a split, a
fundamental division, which occurred in the initial stages of the group. They
even tell us that the founder of the Qumran community, the Teacher of Righteousness, as well as the Man of Lies, his rival in this clash, had previously belonged to the same community. They also tell us that in the conflict between
them both, only a tiny minority sided with the Teacher of Righteousness. The
best way to make sense of the undeniable connection that existed between the
Essene movement and the Qumran community, is to accept that the Qumran
community arose specifically on account of a rift caused within the Essene
movement to which the founder-members belonged. This proposal comprises
one of the essential elements of the ‘Groningen Hypothesis’,84 which best explains
the known facts in their entirety, both in respect of the Essenes and in
respect of the Qumran community.
In this hypothesis, the origins of the Essene movement and the origins of the
Qumran community are quite separate. Essenism, in the form that can be inferred
from classical information concerning the Essenes, and from Essene
compositions preserved in the Qumran library, is a Palestinian affair, which has
its ideological roots within apocalyptic tradition. 85 This tradition flourished in
Palestine towards the end of the 3rd century and during the 2nd century bce,
and would continue its own development up to the period of the revolt against
Rome. (Flavius Josephus, for example, mentions Judas the Essene who taught
in the Temple at the time of Aristobulos [115-104 bce] and Menahem who
worked in the court of Herod the Great [37-4 bce]. Also, Simon the Essene
who prophesied at the close of Archaelaus’ reign [4 bce to 6 CE]. He also mentions
John the Essene, who was entrusted with the governorship of the province
of Zama during the war against Rome, led the first attack on Ashkelon,
and died in that battle in 66 ce.) From the works written during the period of
development prior to establishment in Qumran, from documents of this period
belonging to patently sectarian works, and from later works which refer expressly
to the founding period, it can be deduced that the Qumran community,
instead, has its origins in a rift which occurred within the Essene movement.
This rift was to cause those siding with the Teacher of Righteousness to set
themselves up with him in the desert, until 130 bce.
Study of these documents enables us to conclude that the key controversies
within the Essene movement during the period of formation of the Qumran
sect, and which eventually caused the rift, focused on the matter of the calendar
and the resulting organization of the cycle of feasts. Of particular concern
was a certain way of interpreting biblical legislation concerning the temple,
worship, and the purity of persons and of objects. 86 This special halakhah is
based on the Teacher of Righteousness being aware of having received through divine revelation the correct interpretation of the biblical text. It is also based
on his followers seeing this interpretation as revealed and binding.87

This awareness of having received revelation would induce the Teacher of Righteousness to proclaim the end of time as imminent, the awareness of divine
selection and predestination, the inadequacy of the temple and current worship,
etc., In addition he was led to suggest a whole string of special halakhot
conditioning daily life, and attempt to force the practice of this interpretation
on all the members ofthe Essene movement. The rejection of these pretensions
by the majority of the members of the Essene movement, and their disapproval
of this halakhah, were to end in forcing the group of the Teacher of Righteousness
and his disciples to retreat to the isolation of the wilderness.

The texts that have been found enable us to sketch with relative certainty the
ideological reasons for the rift which gave rise to the Qumran community.
They are much more sparing when it comes to providing us with exact details
of the actual circumstances in which the break occurred, and of later developments over the 200 years that the community existed. From the manuscripts, little more can be ascertained than a broad historical outline. It establishes the time for God’s ‘visitation’ at about 390 years from the exile, and the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness as twenty years later. Further, particular enemies can be equated with the Pharisees and Sadducees There is an enigmatic allusion to Alexander Jannaeus and his execution of 800 Pharisees who had sought
the intervention of Demetrius in Eucarios. The external enemy (the Kittim)
can be identified as the Romans. The most frequent references, which also
provide the best hope for making a connection between the history of the community and official history, are to the ‘Wicked Priest’ in the Habakkuk Pesher.
He is said to be the highest power in the land and at one stage he would persecute
the Teacher of Righteousness and his community in their desert retreat.
These references, though, continue to be useless, since the mass of features
attributed to this person could not fit any of the High Priests of the 2nd century

On this topic, too, the ‘Groningen Hypothesis’ has succeeded in providing
a solution. This solution is in agreement with all the details of the texts, fits in
with the time-limits demanded by the excavations of the Khirbet, and establishes
the chronology for the development of the initial stages of the history of
the community. In essence, this part of the hypothesis88 surmises that the title
‘Wicked Priest’ is not a nickname assigned to the High Priest. Instead, it is a
honorary title applied to the various Hasmonean High Priests, from Judas
Maccabaeus to Alexander Jannaeus, following an exact chronological sequence.
This obviates the need for assigning to a single person all the different and
contradictory features asserted of the ‘Wicked Priest’. It also provides a historical
framework within which can be fitted the earliest history of the community.
The hypothesis allows us to understand the positive estimation of Judas
Maccabaeus, when he first took up office and his later condemnation, once he
was installed. It enables us to reject identifying the movement from which the
Qumran group originates with the Hasidim of the Maccabaean revolt because
of Alcimo’s condemnation. We can determine that the formative period of the
community covers, at least, the high priesthood of both Jonathan and Simeon,
two of the ‘Wicked Priests’ with whom the Teacher of Righteousness was in
dispute. Also, we can determine that this formative period is distinguished not
only by the development of belief within the Essene movement, already referred
to, but equally by the confrontations with the political and religious power of Jerusalem.

In addition, that the first group of supporters of the Teacher of Righteousness comprised priests from circles close to power. This hypothesis shows us that the rift within the Essenian movement and the retreat to the wilderness of the group faithful to the Teacher of Righteousness, took place during the long high priesthood ofJohn Hyrcanus, who tracked down the Teacher of Righteousness to his retreat. It dates the death of the Teacher of Righteousness during the same pontificate ofJohn Hyrcanus, since no connection is made between him and the following ‘Wicked Priest’, Alexander Jannaeus. This hypothesis, in conclusion, allows us to place the first edition of 1 QpHab in the final years of the life of Alexander Jannaeus. We can see how the community succeeded in solving the problem of the delay in the onset of the ‘end of time’ and the destruction of all the wicked, expected some 40 years
after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness.
Of the later history of the community we know very little. Archaeology tells
us of a brief abandonment of the buildings at Khirbet Qumran and of a return
there. Successive editing of the texts shows us some of the alterations effected
within them, changes to the community structures as well as development of
theological beliefs. However, it is not possible to make a historical connection
between these ‘exiles in the desert’ and the tortuous history of Palestine in the
1st century bce and the 1st century ce. The Qumran group became less and
less interested in the transformations of history, in order to focus their energy
on study of the Law, and to follow it in accordance with their own interpretation.
Only the events of the founding generation seem to have been assumed
into a view of their own history, which also belongs to sacred history. In the
solitude of the wilderness, the community was to withdraw into itself increasingly.
Prayer was to replace temple sacrifice. The requirements of purity were
to be emphasized to reach a level enabling communion with the world of angels.
The whole life of the community would be stamped with ardent hope for
the victory of goodness. This hope was to be nourished principally by reading
and studying the sacred texts, as well as compositions emanating from apocalyptic
tradition and the Essene movement, and writings composed within the
community itself. These compositions as a whole, the voice and essential mainstay
of the religious life of the community, were to generate a magnificent library,
the remains of which are available here to the interested reader.

vii Further reading
For a first approach to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York 1992), edited
by Flershel Shanks, Joseph A.Fitzmyer, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead
Sea Scrolls (Mahwah, N.J. 1992), and James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea
Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids 1994) could be very useful.
Standard Introductions in English, although somewhat dated, are the following:
M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(New York 1955 and 1958); F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library ofQumran and
Modern Biblical Study (London 1958); J. T. Milik, Ten Years ofDiscovery in the
Wilderness ofJudaea (London 1959); A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings
from Qumran (Oxford 1961); G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford 1965);
G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London 1977).
More detailed information can be found in the chapter on ‘Qumran Sectarian
Literature’ by D. Dimant, in Michael E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings ofthe Second
Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Judaicarum n/2)(Philadelphia 1984)
483-550 and in the chapter ‘The Writings of the Qumran Community’ in E.
Schtirer, The History oftheJewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B. C.-A.
D. 135). A New English Version revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar
and M. Goodman. Volume ill. 1 (Edinburgh 1986) 380-469.



56 Materials for the Dictionary. Series I. 200 BCE- 300 ce. The Academy of the
Hebrew Language. Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem
1988 [Microfiche].
57 The Aramaic texts are assembled in K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten
Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palastina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer
Genisa, Der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten (Gottingen 1984).
58 S. Zeitlin, ‘A Commentary on the Book of Habakkuk: Important Discovery or
Hoax?’, jqr 39 (1949) 235-247;-, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Scholarship
(JQRMS 3) (Philadelphia 1956).
59 O. R. Seller, ‘Radiocarbon dating of Cloth from the cAin Feshka Cave’, basor
123 (1951) 24-26.
60 F. E. Zeuner, ‘Notes on Qumran’, peq 92 (i960) 27-36. The date given by
Zeuner is the year 66 ce since he adds to the date attained about 50 years for
the average life of a palm-tree, but, as E. M. Laperrousaz points out, this addition
is unnecessary since what Carbon 14 (the Carbon 14 test) determines is the
date when the tree was cut down. See E. M. Laperrousaz, ‘La datation des
objets provenant de Qumran, en particulier la methode utilisant les proprietes
du Carbone 14’ in M. Delcor, (ed.), Qumran. Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu
(betl 46) (Paris/Leuven 1978) 55-60.
61 D. Burton, J. B. Poole and R. Reed, ‘A New Approach to the Dating of the
Dead Sea Scrolls’, Nature 184 (1959) 533-534.
62 C. Roth, The Historical Background ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford 1958).
63 In his important book Thefudaean Scrolls. The Problem and a Solution (Oxford
1965) and in subsequent articles, where he attempts to refute the objections
raised against him: ‘Myths ofQumran’, a l uos 6 ( 1966-68) 23-40 and ‘Mythology
of Qumran’, jqr 71 (1970) 241-281.

64 J. L. Teicher, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls -Documents of the Jewish-Christian Sect
of Ebionites’, //S2 (1951) 67-99;-, ‘The Damascus fragments and the Origin
of the Jewish Christian Sect’,//52 (1951) 115-143;-, ‘The Teaching of the
pre-Pauline Church in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, jjs \ (1953) 1-13, etc.
65 B. E. Thiering, Redating the Teacher ofRighteousness (Sydney 1979);-, The Gospels and Qumran. A Netp Hypothesis (Sydney 198 1); – The Qumran Origins ofthe Christian Church (Sydney 1983).
66 R. Eisenman, Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran (Leiden 1983) and
fames the fust in the Habakkuk Pesher (Leiden 1986).
67 W. F. Albright, ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Ages: The Nash
Papyrus’, jbl 56 (1937) 145-176.
68 S. A. Birnbaum, The Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography (basor
Supp. Studies 13-14; New Haven 1952);-, The Hebrew Script (Leiden 1971).
69 N. Avigad, ‘The Palaeography ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents’
in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds.), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta
Hierosolymitana iv; Jerusalem 1958) 56-87.
70 F. M. Cross, ‘The Development of the Jewish Scripts’ in G. E. Wright (ed.),
The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor ofWilliam FoxwellAlbright
(Garden City 1965) 170-264.
71 W. Wolfi, ‘Advances in Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, Nucl. Instrum Meth.
B29 (1987) 1-13.
72 The inclusion of dated manuscripts (a fact unknown to those making the analysis) was for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the technique used.
73 See G. Bonani, M. Broshi, I. Carmi, S. Ivy, J. Strugnell and W. Wolfi, ‘Radiocarbon
Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, cAtiqot 20 (1991) 27-32.
74 The only exception is the manuscript of the Aramaic Testament ofQahat, for
which the Carbon 14 method ascribes a date much earlier than that attributed
to it by the palaeographers. Specimens of this manuscript, cleaned by ultrasound,
yield dates earlier by about 350 years than specimens of the same manuscripts
cleaned chemically, which seems to suggest that the leather became very
contaminated by the chemicals used to clean it. This contamination could explain
that in this case the date established by the Carbon 14 method (between
388 and 353 bce) is almost 200 years earlier than the date ascribed to it by

75 Cave 7 is a special case. All the manuscripts recovered from it are in Greek, and
to the extent to which they can be identified, they all comprise biblical material.
76 This calendar is to be found as part of several copies of such typical sectarian
works as iqs or 4QMMT, is followed consistently in compositions such as
tiQTemple, and is implicit in works such as lQpHab, and its organization, its
effects and the fact that it was revealed are all made explicit in works such as
CD and fubilees.
77 N. Golb, ‘The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls’,paps 124 (1980) 1-24;-, ‘Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?’, BA 28 (1987) 68-82;
‘Les manuscrits de la Mer Morte: Une nouvelle approche du probleme de
leur originC.Annales £SC40 (1987) 1133-1149;-, ‘Who Wrote the Dead Sea
Scrolls?’, The Sciences 27 (1987) 40-49;-, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’, The American
Scholar 58 (1989) 177-207; ‘Khirbet Qumran and the Manuscripts of the
Judaean Wilderness: Observations on the Logic of Their Investigation’, jnes
49 (1990) 103-114.
78 Although expressed independently, this theory of Golb’s does little except
revive the old and deservedly abandoned hypothesis of K. H. Rengstorf, Hirbet
Qumran und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer (Studia Delitzschiana 5; Stuttgart
i960), which conjectured that the manuscripts in question came from the Temple
in Jerusalem, and were hidden in the caves for reasons of safekeeping during
thfe revolt against Rome.
79 In F. Garcia Martinez and A. S. van der Woude, ‘A “Groningen” Hypothesis
of Qumran Origins and Early History’, in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), The Texts
ofQumran and the History ofthe Community. Vol. ///(Paris 1990) 521-554.
80 This information has been collected in A. Adam and C. Burchard, Antike
Berichte iiher die Essener (Berlin 1972 2 ) and in G. Vermes and M. D. Goodman,
The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield 1989).
81 These similarities are to be found both in respect of the structure of the community- prominence of the priestly aspect, admission procedures for members,
property in common, preference for celibacy, communal meals, etc. – and in
religious belief- predestination (determinism), severe rules for purity, sabbath
observance, forswearing of oaths, importance of study of the Law, etc. and
even particular points of halakhah ostensibly insignificant, but for that very
reason even more telling such as the refusal to use oil or the ban on spitting in
the Council. See the summary of parallels drawn up by A. Dupont-Sommer,
Les Ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la Mer Morte (Paris 19834 ) 5 1-80 or by G.
Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective (Philadelphia 1981) 116-
136 or the detailed references by T. S. Beall, Josephus ‘s description ofthe Essenes
illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (sntsm 58; Cambridge 1988). H. Stegemann,
‘The Qumran Essenes – Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late
Second Temple Times’ in J. Trebolle Barrera, L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The
Madrid Qumran Congress, 83-166 have gone so far as to identify the Qumran
Essenes with what he calls ‘the main Jewish Union’, the leading group of Palestinian Judaism.
82 In my contribution to the ‘Simposio biblico de Cordoba’, 1985: ‘Origenes del
movimiento esenio y origenes qumranicos. Pistas para una solucion’, cited
above, n. 38.

83 See my study ‘Essenisme qumranien: origines, caracteristiques, heritage’ in B.
Chiesa (ed.), Correnti culturali e movimenti religiosi de! Giudaismo (Testi e Studi
5; Rome 1987) 37-57.

84 First advanced at a congress organized by the Polish Academy of Science in
Mogilany, in 1987: F. Garcia Martinez, ‘Qumran Origins and Early History:
A Groningen Hypothesis’, fo 25 (1988) 113-136.
85 See my book Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts ofQumran
(STDJ 9; Leiden 1992). For a summary view of the connections between the
Qumran manuscripts and apocalyptic, see my contribution ‘La Apocaliptica y
Qumran’ in II Simposio Biblico Espanol, 603-613.
86 I have discussed some of these topics in detail in ‘El Rollo del Templo y la
halaka sectaria’ in N. Fernandez Marcos, J. Trebolle Barrera and J. Fernandez
Vallina (eds.), Simposio Biblico Espanol (Madrid 1984) 611-622 and in ‘II
problema della purita: la soluzione qumranica’ in G. L. Prato, (ed.), Israele alia
ricerca di identita tra il III sec. a. C. e il sec. I d. C. (Ricerche storico bibliche 1;
Bologna 1989) 169-191.
87 See my study ‘Profeet en profetie in de geschriften van Qumran’ in F. Garcia
Martinez, C. H.J. de Geus and A. F. J. Klijn, (eds.), Profeten en profetische
geschriften (Kampen/Nijkerk 1987) 119-132.
88 Set out in the article by A. S. van der Woude, ‘Wicked Priest or Wicked
Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest of the Habakkuk
Commentary’, jsj 33 (1982) 349-359. My contribution to this part of the
‘Groningen Hypothesis’ is confined to proving that the title ‘Wicked Priest’
could equally have been applied to Judas Maccabaeus, ‘Judas Macabeo,
sacerdote impio? Notas al margen de lQpHab vm, 8-13’ in A. Caquot, S.
Legasse and M. Tardieu (eds.), Melanges btbliques et orientaux en Vhonneurde M.
Mathias Dehor (aoat 215; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985) 169-181.


The Qumran Texts in English By Florentino García Martínez
Posted in religious themes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


«ἦ μήν ἔτι Ζεύς, καίπερ αὐθάδη φρονῶν,
ἔσται ταπεινός, oἷov ἐξαρτύεται
γάμον γαμεῖν, ὅς αὐτόν ἐκ τυραννίδος
θρόνων τ’ ἄϊστον έκβαλεῖ· πατρός δ’ ἀρά
Κρόνου τότ’ ἤδη παντελῶς κρανθήσεται,
ἥν ἐκπίτνων ἠρᾶτο δηναιῶν θρόνων»[1]

[Ὡστόσο, παρ’ ὅλη τήν ἀλαζονεία τοῦ μυαλοῦ του, ὁ Δίας, κάποτε θά ταπεινωθεῖ, ἐξαιτίας τοῦ γάμου πού ἑτοιμάζεται νά κάνει, ὁ ὁποῖος ἀπό τόν θρόνο του, ἄφαντο, θά τόν γκρεμίσει. Κι ἔτσι θά ἐπαληθευτεῖ ἡ κατάρα τοῦ πατέρα του Κρόνου, τήν ὁποία ἐκστόμισε, ὅταν ἔπεσε ἀπό τόν πανάρχαιο θρόνο τῶν θεῶν] [2]

Αὐτή ὑπῆρξε ἡ περίφημη «προφητεία» τοῦ Αἰσχύλου, ἡ προβλέπουσα τό Τέλος τοῦ Διός καί ἡ ὁποία λίγο ἔλειψε νά ὁδηγήσει τόν μεγάλο τραγικό στό… κώνειο, θεωρηθεῖσα ὡς παραβίαση τοῦ ἀπορρήτου της διδασκαλίας τῶν Ἐλευσινίων Μυστηρίων. Σήμερα βέβαια ἀντιλαμβανόμαστε τό ὀρφικό περιεχόμενο αὐτῆς της συμβολικῆς «προφητείας», ἀλλά ἐκεῖνο πού συγκλόνισε τό κοινό τοῦ 5ου αἰ. π.κ.ε. ἦταν ἡ διαπίστωση ὅτι ὑπάρχει ἐνδεχόμενο καί ἡ θρησκεία νά μήν ξεφεύγει ἀπό τό ἱστορικό Γίγνεσθαι, τό ὁποῖο ἀκολουθεῖ τή φυσική διαδικασία τῆς γέννησης καί τῆς φθορᾶς. Ὁπωσδήποτε τό γεγονός τῆς προφητείας τοῦ Προμηθέα Δεσμώτη ὑπῆρξε μοναδικό στά πάγκόσμια χρονικά· δέν ἔχει ξανασυμβεῖ νά παρουσιάζεται στό κοινό κατά τή διάρκεια Θρησκευτικῶν ἐκδηλώσεων (ὅπου παρουσιάζονταν οἱ τραγωδίες) διδασκαλία προβλέπουσα τό τέλος τῆς ἐπικρατούσας θρησκείας!

Τό ὅτι τό κοινό φαίνεται νά ἀποδέχτηκε τό αἰσχύλειο ἔργο, ὄχι βέβαια χωρίς ἀντιρρήσεις και πάντως λιγότερες ἀπό τήν Μιλήτου Ἅλωσιν τοϋ Φρύνιχου! καταδεικνύει τό ὑψηλό πνευματικό ἐπίπεδο τοῦ ἀθηναϊκοῦ κοινοῦ του 5ου αἰ. π.κ.ε. ἑνός κοινοῦ πού εἶχε ἤδη ἀκούσει τίς θεολογικές ἀπόψεις τῶν προσωκρατικῶν, οἱ ὁποίες γκρέμιζαν τό πάνθεον τοῦ Ὀλυμπου χάριν τοῦ Ἑνός Θεοῦ, καί τίς εἶχε, φαίνεται, ἐν πολλοῖς ἐνστερνιστεῖ.

Βέβαια, εἶναι ἐπίσης ἀληθές ὅτι κι ἄν οἱ μεγάλοι θεοί τοῦ Ὀλυμπου χάθηκαν κάτω ἀπό τά κτυπήματα τῶν Προσωκρατικῶν καί τῶν Σοφιστῶν, οἱ χθόνιοι Δαίμονες ζοῦν ὡς τά σήμερα ἀθάνατοι στήν ἑλληνική ὕπαιθρο ὡς Στοιχειά, Νεράιδες καί Λάμιες. [3] Πάντως, ἄν ἡ ἀρχαία ἑλληνική θρησκεία ἰχνηλατεῖται σήμερα ζῶσα καί βασιλεύουσα στή σύγχρονη λαογραφία, ἡ θεολογία τῶν Προσωκρατικῶν, τοῦ Πλάτωνα, τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλη καί τῶν Νεοπλατωνικῶν ὑποβαστάζει ὡς ἀκρογωνιαῖος λίθος τίς τρεῖς μεγάλες μονοθεϊστικές θρησκεῖες καί κατ’ ἐξοχήν τόν Χριστιανισμό.

Ποιά θά ἦταν σήμερα ἤ θεωρία περί Ψυχῆς τοῦ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ,τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ καί τοῦ Ἰσλαμισμοῦ, χωρίς τόν Ὀρφισμό τοῦ 5ου αἰ. π.κ.ε.

Ποιά θά ἦταν σήμερα ἡ διδασκαλία Περί Θεοῦ (Πατρός) τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ χωρίς τή θεολογία τοῦ Πλάτωνα καί τῶν Προσωκρατικῶν;

Ποιά θά ἦταν ἡ Τριαδική θεολογία τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ’Ἐκκλησίας χωρίς τήν Τριαδολογία τοῦ Πλωτίνου ἤ τήν Ἑναδολογία του Πρόκλου;

Βέβαια δέν θά ἰσχυριστοῦμε ὅτι ὅλη ἡ θεολογία τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων Μυστῶν μεταφέρθηκε αὐτούσια στόν Χριστιανισμό ἤ τόν Ἰσλαμισμό. Ἐκεῖνο γιά τό ὁποῖο βοᾶ ἡ Ἱστορία εἶναι ὅτι ἡ ἀρχαία ἑλληνική θεολογία τῶν Προσωκρατικῶν, τοῦ Πλάτωνα, τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλη καί τῶν Νεοπλατωνικῶν, κληρονομήθηκε στόν Χριστιανισμό, ἔστω καί μετασχηματισμένη. Χωρίς τή θεολογία τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων Μυστῶν ἦταν ἀδύνατον νά εἶχε ὑπάρξει ὁ Χριστιανισμός μέ τή μορφή ποῦ τόν γνωρίζουμε σήμερα. (Γι’ αὐτό, συκοφαντώντας ἀνιστόρητα τους ἀρχαίους Ἕλληνες ὡς «εἰδωλολάτρες», δέν ἀδικοῦμε μόνο τόν Ἠράκλειτο, τόν Παρμενίδη, τόν Ξενοφάνη, τόν Σωκράτη, τόν Πλάτωνα, τόν Ἀριστοτέλη, τόν Πλωτίνο, τόν Πρόκλο κ.λπ., ἀλλά ἀπεμπολοῦμε τό ἴδιο τό φιλοσοφικό Θεμέλιο του Χριστιανισμοῦ καί τῶν ἄλλων μονοθεϊστικῶν θρησκειῶν.)

Ἡ ἱστορική ἀλήθεια εἶναι ἁπλῆ: ἡ θεολογία τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων Μυστῶν εἶναι πιό κοντά στόν Χριστιανισμό καί τόν Ἰουδαϊσμό, παρά στή λαϊκή δεισιδαιμονία τῆς ἐποχῆς της! Αὐτό βέβαια δέν σημαίνει ὅτι ὁ Παρμενίδης, ὁ Ξενοφάνης ἤ ὁ Πλάτων θά μποροῦσαν νά ἦταν Χριστιανοί, ἄν βέβαια ζοῦσαν στήν πρωτοβυζαντινή περίοδο. Τό πιθανότερο εἶναι νά μήν ἦταν· ὅπως δέν ἔγιναν χριστιανοί ὁ Ἰάμβλιχος, ὁ Πλωτῖνος, ὁ Πρόκλος, ὁ Σιμπλίκιος, ὁ Δαμάσκιος. Ἀλλά ἡ Ἱστορία σπάνια δέχεται ἐκβιαστικά διλήμματα τοῦ τύπου: «Χριστιανοί ἤ Πολυθεϊστές». Μπορεῖ κάποιοι νά μήν εἶναι οὔτε τό ἕνα οὔτε τό ἄλλο, ὅπως συνέβαινε μέ τούς Ἕλληνες Μύστες τῆς ὕστερης ἀρχαιότητας. Αὐτό ὅμως δέν ἀναιρεῖ τόν «προδρομικό» ρόλο πού ἔπαιξε ἡ θεολογία τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων Μυστῶν γιά τή θεολογία τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ καί τῶν ἄλλων μονοθεϊστικῶν θρησκειῶν.

Τά μεγαλύτερα πνεύματα τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ἀρχαιότητας δέν ὑπῆρξαν «δωδεκαθεϊστές»· ἀντίθετα λειτούργησαν στήν ἱστορική ἐξέλιξη τοῦ θρησκευτικοῦ στοχασμοῦ ὡς ἀγγελιαφόροι ἑνός, ἀποφατικῶς, ἀντιλαμβανόμενου Θεοῦ. Ὅ Δαμάσκιος ὑπῆρξε ἕν προκειμένω σαφέστατος : «τό ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Ἑνός πάντῃ ἀπόρρητον ». (Περί Ἀρχῶν 1,56,6).

Ἄν οἵ Χριστιανοί ἀπέδωσαν στήν ἔννοια τοῦ Θεοῦ τόν προσδιορισμό «Πατήρ» καί οἱ Ἑβραῖοι τόν προσδιορισμό «Κύριος» (Adonai), οἱ ἀρχαῖοι Ἕλληνες δέχθηκαν ὡς πλέον ἁρμόζον τό προσωνόμιο: «ὁ Ἄγνωστος Θεός», ὁ Ἄρρητος. Ἡ συνεκφορά αὐτή δέν ἀναφέρεται τόσο σ’ ἕναν Θεό πού δρᾶ incognito ἀνάμεσά μας, ὅσο σ’ ἕναν Ὑπερβατικό θεό, «πάντων Ἐπέκεινα», Ξένο πρός ὅλα ἀκόμα καί σ’ αὐτήν τήν ἔννοια τοϋ Εἶναι.

Ἄν πυρήνας τῆς Φιλοσοφίας εἶναι τό πρόβλημα τοϋ Θεοῦ [4] ἡ ἀρχαία ἑλληνική φιλοσοφία, θεολογοῦσα, ἔφτασε στό ὕψιστο σημεῖο πού μπορεϊ νά φτάσει ἡ ἀνθρώπινη σκέψη. Ὅταν ὁ ἀνθρώπινος Λόγος νοεῖ τό «ὅλως ἀνόμοιον», αὐτό πού εἶναι ἀ-δια-νόητο. τότε ξεπερνᾶ τόν ἑαυτό του, αὐθυπερβαινεται. Αὐτη τήν αὐθυπέρβαση, τήν κατέκτησε πρῶτο καί μόνο τό ἀρχαῖο ἑλληνικό πνεῦμα, ὅπως ἀποτυπώθηκε στούς ἀρχαιους Ἕλληνες Μύστες, τούς τραγικούς ἀγγελιαφόρους τοϋ Μή-Ὄντος.

Ἡ πορεία αὐτή βέβαια, ὅπως εἴδαμε, δέν ἦταν οὔτε ἀνθόσπαρτη οὔτε γραμμική. «Ἐν ἀρχῇ», τό Ἕτερον ἐμφανίστηκε ὡς Διονύσιος Ζαγρεύς (Ὀρφικοί), κατόπιν ὡς ἀνύπαρκτο Μηδέν (Παρμενίδης), ὥσπου ν’ ἀρχίσει νά ἀποκαλύπτεται ὡς «Ζωντανό Κενό», στούς Ἀτομικούς Φιλοσόφους καί στόν Πλάτωνα. Στή μαθηματική σκέψη τῶν θεολογούντων φιλοσόφων τό «Ἕτερον» ταυτίστηκε μέ τό «Χωρίς πέρας» (ἄρρητοι ἀριθμοί) καί θεωρήθηκε ὡς ἡ μήτρα τοῦ Κακοῦ. Χρειάστηκε ἡ μεγαλοφυΐα τοϋ Ἀναξαγόρα γιά νά ἀποκατασταθεῖ τό Χαοτικό «Ἄπειρον» στή συνείδηση τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων ὡς «χαρακτηριστικό» τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Ὕστερα ἐμφανίστηκε ὁ μέγας Μύστης Σωκράτης. Σ’ αὐτόν ὁ μυστικισμός ἔγινε Πίστη στόν Ἄγνωστο Θεό, πού ἐμφανίζεται στούς ἀνθρώπους ὡς μία ἀνεξήγητη, μυστική ἀποῦσα παρουσία:

«Σφίγγει τό χέρι στίς ἄφεγγες νύχτες.
Τί εἶναι ὁ Θεός, κανείς μας
στούς αἰῶνες δέν θά μάθει·
Ὅμως ζητᾶ παντοτεινά
νά συνδεθεῖ πιστά μαζί μας».[5]

Στόν Σωκράτη τό τέλος τοῦ λόγου εἶναι ἡ Ἀπορία.

Ὅμως τό τέλος τῆς ἀπορίας εἶναι ἡ Πίστη.

Ὡς τέλος τοῦ λόγου, ἡ ἀπορία δέν σημαίνει καταστροφή, ἀλλά συνείδηση τῶν ὁρίων τοῦ λόγου. Ὡς τέλος τῆς ἀπορίας, ἡ πίστη δέν σημαίνει ἀφανισμό, ἀλλά συνείδηση τῶν ὁρίων τῆς ἀπορίας. Στόν Σωκράτη, ὅπως καί στόν Πλάτωνα, ὁ ἀνθρώπινος λόγος διαισθάνεται τήν προτεραιότητα ἑνός ἄλλου ὑπερβατικοῦ Λόγου-Ὑπερλόγου, ὁ ὁποῖος «εἶναι» τό Μή-Εἶναι,τό «ὅλως Ἕτερον», τό παντελῶς Ἀνόμοιον. Ὁ Πλάτων εἰδικά, συνέλαβε ὅτι ἡ Πραγματικότητα δέν μπορεῖ νά συλληφθεϊ παρά μόνο σέ σχέση μέ αὐτό, τό «Ἕτερον».

Τό μεγαλεῖο τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφων, ἀπό τόν Πυθαγόρα μέχρι τόν Δαμάσκιο, εἶναι ὅτι αὐτό τό φρικῶδες καί ἀπροσδιόριστο «Ἕτερον» τό ἀποδέχθηκαν καί τό ὀνόμασαν «Θεό». Οἱ μεταγενέστεροι θεολογοῦντες, αὐτήν τήν κατάκτηση τήν καταχώρησαν ὡς «Ἀποφατική θεολογία» ἤ ὡς «Μυστικισμό». Ὅ ἑλληνισμός, ὡστόσο, ἀποδέχθηκε τόν «Ἄγνωστο Θεό» τῶν μυστῶν καί τόν κατέστησε κέντρο τῆς κοινωνικῆς του ζωῆς ἐγκαθιστώντας τον μέ τή μορφή τοῦ Διονύσου – πού ἐνσαρκώνει στό ἑλληνικό πάνθεον τήν ἔννοια τοῦ «Ἑτέρου»[6] – στό κατ’ ἐξοχήν κέντρο τοῦ κοινωνικοῦ σώματος, στό θέατρο [7] ὡς μέγιστο μάθημα Ἀνοχῆς πρός τόν Ξένο, τόν Ἀλλότριο.

Οἱ ἀρχαῖοι Ἕλληνες Μύστες, ὡς φιλόσοφοι, ἐννόησαν τό ἀδιανόητο τοῦ «Ἑτέρου» κι αὐτό ὑπῆρξε ἡ ὕψιστη κατάκτηση τῆς φιλοσοφικῆς σκέψης. Ὡς θεολόγοι, ὅμως, διαισθάνθηκαν ὅτι αὐτο τό «Ὅλως Ἀνόμοιον Ἕτερον» εἶναι ὁ ἀπρόσιτος Θεός, ἡ τελική πηγή παντός Ἀγαθοῦ. Ἡ διαίσθηση αὐτή ὑπῆρξε ἐσωτερική ἀποκάλυψη,δήλ. πίστη. Ἡ ἐμπειρία αὐτή κατέστησε τούς ἀρχαίους Ἕλληνες φιλοσόφους, Μύστες. Ἡ θεολογική ἀντιληψη ὅτι ὁ Θεός εἶναι τό «Ὅλως Ἀνόμοιον Ἕτερον» ὑπῆρξε, μέ τό πού διατυπώθηκε, ἡ αὐθυπέρβαση κάθε θεολογίας.

Ἡ θεολογία τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων Μυστῶν δέν εἶχε ὡς σκοπό τήν κατάκτηση τῆς ἔννοιας τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ μέρους τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· τελικός προορισμός της ὑπῆρξε πάντα ἡ καταξίωση τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐνώπιον του Θεοῦ, ἡ αὐθυπέρβαση. Εἴτε καταφατική θεολογία (Ὀρφικοί, Πυθαγόρας) εἴτε Ἀποφατική (Πλάτων, Πλωτῖνος, Πρόκλος) εἴτε θεολογία τοῦ Αὐτοδημιουργούμενου Θεοῦ (Ἠράκλειτος), ἡ συνολική ἀπάντηση τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων στό Ἐρώτημα περί Θεοῦ ὑπῆρξε καταλυτική γιά τήν παγκόσμια θεολογική σκέψη καί ἰδιαίτερα τήν χριστιανική: οἱ ἀναζητοῦντες τόν Θεό εἶναι ἀργοναῦτες πού γνωρίζουν ὅτι τό χρυσόμαλλο δέρας δέν εἶναι δυνατόν νά κλαπεῖ, γιατί αὐτό ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ, δωρεάν, σέ ὅσους συνειδητοποιοῦν ὅτι δέν ἀξίζουν τέτοια μεγάλη προσφορά.

Ὁ Θεός προσφέρεται στόν ἄνθρωπο, ἀκριβῶς ἐπειδή ὁ ἄνθρωπος δέν ἀξίζει τήν προσφορά. Ἡ ὑποδοχή αὐτῆς της προσφορᾶς (πού ὁ ἄνθρωπος δέν ἀξίζει) ὀνομάζεται στήν θρησκευτική γλώσσα: Πίστη. Πιστεύων ὁ ἄνθρωπος, δηλαδή ἀποδεχόμενος τήν θεία προσφορά πού δέν ἀξίζει, μιμεῖται τόν Θεό, ἐφ’ ὅσον χαρίζει σ’ Αὐτόν τόν ἑαυτό του, ὅπως προηγουμένως ὁ Θεός δώρισε τή Χάρη του στόν ἀνάξιο ἄνθρωπο. Τή «διαδικασία» αὐτή ὁ Πλάτων τήν ἀποκαλοῦσε ὡς γνωστόν, «ὁμοίωσιν Θεῷ». Ἐν ἀντιθέσει πρός τήν ἑβραϊκή ἀγωνία τῆς αὐτοδικαίωσης ἐνώπιόν τοῦ Θεοῦ «διά τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἔργων», ὁ πιστός τα τῆς Ἑλλάδος γνωρίζει ὅτι «πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθή καί πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθεν ἔστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπό τοῦ πατρός τῶν φώτων» [Ἰακ. 1,17]

«Ζεῦ, μεγάλαι δ’ ἀρεταί
Θνατοῖς ἕπονται
ἐκ Σέθεν» Πίνδαρ. Ἰσθμιονικ. Γ, 4-5.

[Ζεῦ, οἱ μεγάλες ἀρετές ἔρχονται στούς θνητούς ἀπό Σένα].

Ἡ πνευματική αὐτή ταπείνωση εἶναι ἡ Ὡραία Πύλη διά μέσου τής ὁποίας εἰσέρχεται στόν χῶρο τοῦ προσωρινοῦ, τό Αἰώνιο. Ἡ εἴσοδος αὐτή ὅμως γίνεται μέ τραγικό τρόπο, γιατί λαμβάνει χώρα κάθε φορά πού ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀκούει τούς «μαντατοφόρους ἀπό τήν Τροία» νά τοῦ λένε:

«Πῶς τόσος πόνος τόση ζωή πῆγαν στήν ἄβυσσο
γιά ἕνα πουκάμισο ἀδειανό, γιά μιάν Ἑλένη!»[10]

Σέ μιά τέτοια ἀπέραντη μοναξιά ὁ Ἕλλην Μύστης φέρνει στό νοῦ του τόν Αἰσχύλο· μπορεῖ ὁ *Προμηθέας Δεσμώτης νά στενάζει λέγοντας ὅτι: «οὐδέν ἐστι τέρμα μοι προκείμενον μόχθων, πρίν ἄν Ζεύς ἐκπέσῃ τυραννίδος» Αἰσχύλος, 755-756.

(Τέλος τῶν πόνων μου πουθενά δέν βλέπω, πρίν ἀπ’ τό θρόνο του πέσει ὁ Δίας), ὡστόσο ἡ προφητεία τοῦ τραγικοῦ Αἰσχύλου ὁλοκληρώνεται μέ «μεσσιανικό», θά λέγαμε, τρόπο:

«τοιοῦδε μόχθου τέρμα
μή τι προσδόκα,
πρίν ἄν θεῶν τις διάδοχος
τῶν σῶν πόνων φανῇ,
θελήσῃ τ’ εἰς ἀναύγητον μολεῖν
Ἅϊδην κνεφαῖά τ’ ἀμφί Ταρτάρου βάθη» Αἰσχύλος, Προμηθεύς Δεσμώτης, 1026-1029.

[Τέλος τοῦ μαρτυρίου σου μήν περιμένεις, προτοῦ κάποιος ἀπό τους θεούς φανεῖ τά πάθη σου νά ἀναλάβει καί ἑκούσια νά κατεβεῖ στά ἀνήλια βάθη τοῦ Τάρταρου καί τοῦ Ἅδη].

Ὅσο, ὅμως, κι ἄν αὐτή ἡ προφητεία τοῦ Αἰσχύλου ἀποδόθηκε λανθασμένα στόν Χριστό, ἡ ἀρχαία ἑλληνική θεολογία σέ ὅλες τίς ἐκδοχές της (προσωκρατική, πλατωνική, ἀριστοτελική, στωϊκή, νεοπλατωνική) ποτέ δέν κατέληξε νά γίνει Δόγμα, μονολιθικό καί ἀπαγορευτικό γιά τήν ὕπαρξη τῶν ἄλλων θρησκειῶν, γιατί, σέ τελική ἀνάλυση, ἦταν πάντα ἡ Ἐλευθερία ἐκείνη πού ἀποτελοῦσε τό ἔσχατο κριτήριο τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ἀντίληψης γιά τή ζωή, τόν ἄνθρωπο, τόν κόσμο καί τόν θάνατο. Σέ κάθε περίπτωση, ἰσχύει πάντα ἡ Προσευχή τῆς Ἑκάβης στόν Δία, ὅπως τήν ἀναφέρει στίς Τρωάδες ὁ Εὐριπίδης:

«Ὅστις ποτ’ εἶ Σύ, δυστόπαστος εἰδέναι,
Ζεύς, εἴτ’ ἀνάγκη φύσεος εἴτε νοῦς βροτῶν,
προσηυξάμην σε· πάντα γάρ δι’ ἀψόφου
βαίνων κελεύθαι κατά δίκην τά θνήτ’ ἄγεις» Εὐριπίδης, Τρωάδες, 885-888.

[Ὦ Δία, ποιά εἶναι ἡ Οὐσία Σου, δύσκολο
νά τό ξέρει κανείς: νόμος φυσικός ἤ ἀνθρώπινη
ἐπινόηση (εἶσαι;). Ἐσένα (ὅμως) παρακαλῶ στήν προσευχή μου,
γιατί πάντα μέσ’ ἀπό τους δρόμους τῆς Σιγῆς, κανονίζεις
δίκαια τά ἀνθρώπινα πράγματα].

@Διαμαντή Κων. Κούτουλα /περιοδικό ΔΑΥΛΟΣ

[1] Αἰσχύλος, Προμηθεύς Δεσμώτης, 907-912.
[2] Η μετάφραση είναι του Γ. Θέμελη.
[3] Μ. P. Nilsson, Ἑλληνική Λαϊκή Θρησκεία, μέτ. I. Κακριδη, ἐκδ. Ἑστίας, Ἀθήνα 2000, σελ.14.
[4] Σ. Δ. Κυριαζόπουλος, Προλεγόμενα εἰς τήν ἐρώτησιν περί Θεοῦ, ἐκδ. Γρηγόρη, Ἀθήνα 2000. σέλ. 220.
[5] C. F. Meyer, In Harmesnachten (W. W. – W. Linden I. Teil 1929, σελ. 36).
[6] J. – P. Vemant, To Βλέμμα τού Θανάτου. Μορφές τῆς Ἑτερότητας στήν Ἀρχαία Ἑλλάδα, μετ. Γ. Παππάς, ἐκδ. Αλεξάνδρεια, Ἀθήνα 1992, σελ. 33.
[7] Τοῦ ἰδίου, Le Dionysos masque des Bacchantes d’ Euripides, L ’ Homme, 93, Ίαν.- Μάρ. 1985, XXV (1), σ. 31-58.
[10] Γ. Σεφέρης, Ἑλένη, Ἀνθολογία Νεοελλ. Γραμματείας, Ρ. – Η. καί Σ. Ἀποστολίδη, Ἡ Ποίηση,τ. 3ος, Τα Νέα Ελληνικά, Αθήνα 1983, σελ. 1323.

Αριστερά: Προμηθέας Δεσμώτης, Νικολά Σεμπαστιάν Αντάμ, Γαλλική Βασιλική Ακαδημία, 1762.
Δεξιά: Ο Αισχύλος, δραματικός ποιητής. Γεννήθηκε το 525 π.κ.ε. ή το 524 π.κ.ε. στην Ελευσίνα.

terrapapers.com_Aeschylus Prometheus Bound

* Στην τραγωδία «Προμηθεύς Δεσμώτης» ο Αισχύλος πραγματεύεται την ηρωική αντίσταση του αλυσοδεμένου στον Καύκασο Προμηθέα να υποκύψει στο θέλημα του Δία. Θεωρείται από άλλους το μεσαίο ή από τους περισσότερους κριτικούς το πρώτο μέρος τριλογίας που αποτελείται από τα έργα «Προμηθεύς λυόμενος» και «Προμηθεύς πυρφόρος». Στην εισαγωγή του έργου ήδη αποκαλύπτεται η «αμαρτία» του Προμηθέα, που δεν είναι άλλη από την προσβολή της κοσμικής τάξης, αφού αθάνατος ο ίδιος παίρνει το μέρος των θνητών.

Ο πυρήνας του έργου του Προμηθεύς Δεσμώτης, είναι το θέμα ενός ασταμάτητου αγώνα κατά της δύναμης της εξουσίας, που στην προκειμένη περίπτωση συμβολίζεται με τον Δία. Το θέμα της τραγωδίας είναι η τιμωρία του Τιτάνα Προμηθέα από τον βασιλέα των θεών στην άκρη του κόσμου, στην αρχή της βασιλείας του Δία και οι βασικοί «ήρωες» είναι θεοί, ένας μύθος απλούς δηλαδή για την αριστοτέλεια κριτική και μάλιστα δίχως λύσιν, η οποία έρχεται πιθανώς στον Προμηθέα Λυόμενο.

Ο Προμηθέας υφίσταται βουβός ένα ταπεινωτικό μαρτύριο. Η σιγή συνδέεται με την τιμωρία του και αποτελεί έκφραση μιας ανυποχώρητης υπερηφάνειας του. Όταν μένει μόνος στην ερημιά του σκυθικού βράχου υψώνει κραυγή και επικαλείται τη μαρτυρία των στοιχείων της φύσης. Αυτή η διαμαρτυρία, καθώς ηχεί, προκαλεί έντεχνα το δραματικό αποτέλεσμα, χάριν της δραματουργικής τέχνης του ποιητή, ακριβώς επειδή διακόπτει τη μακρά σιωπή του Τιτάνα. Ο Προμηθέας υφίσταται σιωπηλός το αναπότρεπτο μαρτύριο που έχει επιλέξει συνειδητά υποκείμενος στην Ανάγκη.Τα δύο πρόσωπα που μιλούν από την αρχή του έργου, παρουσιάζουν εμφανείς διαφορές. Η σκαιότητα του Κράτους απηχεί το απρόσωπο της μορφής του, ενώ ο Ήφαιστος συμβάλλει εκών άκων με την τέχνη του στο μαρτύριο ενός συγγενικού θεού, αν αναλογιστούμε την τιτανική φύση του, υποκείμενος επίσης στην Ανάγκη που συνιστά η βούληση του Δία.

Ο Προμηθέας, από τον πρώτο μονόλογο, εμφανίζεται συνειδητός (αναλαμβάνει την Ευθύνη) ως προς την απόφαση να υπομείνει το μαρτύριο που επισύρει ο άθλος του. Η τραγικότητά του αναδύεται τόσο από την σημασία της προσφοράς του στον άνθρωπο, όσο και από την εγγραφή του ιστορικού ανθρώπινου και παρόντος δραματικού χρόνου στην ανακύκληση ενός μεγαλύτερου χρόνου, καθώς ο Τιτάνας γνωρίζει το μέλλον. Ο Προμηθέας βιώνει τον μικρόκοσμο μιας προσωπικής περιπέτειας και ταυτόχρονα οραματίζεται τον μακρόκοσμο μέσα στον οποίο αποκτά ιδιαίτερο νόημα η προσωπική βιωματική εμπειρία.


Posted in religious themes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment



The Voyage 1 of Bran son of Febal, and his Expedition 2 here below1. ’TWAS fifty quatrains the woman from unknown lands sang on the floor of the house to Bran son of Febal, when the royal house was full of kings, who knew not whence the woman had come, since the ramparts were closed.2. This is the beginning of the story. One day, in the neighbourhood of his stronghold, Bran went about alone, when he heard music behind him. As often as he looked back, ’twas still behind him the music was. At last he fell asleep at the music, such was its sweetness. When he awoke from his sleep, he saw close by him a branch 3 of p. 3
Imram Brain maic Febail, ocus a Echtra andso sís1. CÓICA rand rogab in ben a tírib ingnath for láur in tige do Bran mac Febail, arrobói a rígthech lán de rígaib, annadfetatar can dolluid in ben, órobatar ind liss dúntai.2. Is ed tossach in sceóil. Imluid Bran laa n-and a óinur i comocus dia dún, cocúala, a ceól far íarna chúl. A n-donécad tar a éissi, ba íarna chúl beus nobíth a ceól. Contuil asendath frissa ceól ar a bindi. A n-dofúsig asa chotlud, conacca in cróib n-arggait fua bláth find ina farruth, na bu hasse etarscarath a bláthe frissin cróib ísin. Dobert íarum Bran in cróib ina láim dia 
p. 4silver with white blossoms, nor was it easy to distinguish its bloom from that branch. Then Bran took the branch in his hand to his royal house. When the hosts were in the royal house, they saw a woman in strange raiment on the floor of the house. ’Twas then she sang the fifty 1 quatrains to Bran, while the host heard her, and all beheld the woman.And she said:3. ‘A branch of the apple-tree 2 from Emain 3
I bring, like those one knows;
Twigs of white silver are on it,
Crystal brows with blossoms.4. ‘There is a distant isle,
Around which sea-horses 4 glisten:
A fair course against the white-swelling surge, 5–
Four feet uphold it. 6
5. ‘A delight of the eyes, a glorious range,
Is the plain on which the hosts hold games:
Coracle contends against chariot
In southern Mag Findargat. 7  
p. 5
rígthig. Órobatar inna sochuidi isind rígthig conaccatar in mnái i n-étuch ingnuth for láur in tige. Is and cachain in cóicait rand so do Braun arranchúale in slóg, ocus adchondarcatar uili in mnái.Onus asbert:3. ‘Cróib dind abaill a hEmain
dofed samail do gnáthaib,
gésci findarggait fora,
abrait glano co m-bláthaib.4. ‘Fil inis i n-eterchéin
immataitnet gabra réin,
rith find fris’ tóibgel tondat,
cetheóír cossa foslongat.5. ‘Is lí súla, sreth íar m-búaid,
am-mag forclechtat ins slúaig:
consna curach fri carpat
isin maig tess Findarggat. 
p. 6
6. ‘Feet of white bronze under it
Glittering through beautiful ages. 1
Lovely land throughout the world’s age,
On which the many blossoms drop.7. ‘An ancient tree there is with blossoms,
On which birds call 2 to the Hours. 3
’Tis in harmony it is their wont
To call together every Hour.8. ‘Splendours of every colour glisten
Throughout the gentle-voiced plains.
Joy is known, ranked around music,
In southern Mag Argatnél. 4
9. ‘Unknown is wailing or treachery 5
In the familiar cultivated land,
There is nothing rough or harsh, 6
But sweet music striking on the ear.10. ‘Without grief, without sorrow, without death,
Without any sickness, without debility, 7
That is the sign of Emain 8–
Uncommon is an equal marvel. 
p. 7
6. ‘Cossa findrune fóe,
taitni tré bithu gnóe:
cáin tír tría bithu bátha,
forsnig inna hilblátha.7. ‘Fil and bile co m-bláthaib
forsṅgairet eóin do thráthaib:
is tré cocetul is gnáth
congairet uili cech tráth.8. ‘Taitnet líga cech datho
trésna maige móithgretho,
is gnáth sube, sreth imm chéul,
isin maig tess Arggatnéul.9. ‘Ní gnáth écóiniud na mrath
hi mruig dénta etargnath,
ní bíi nach gargg fri crúais,
acht mad céul m-bind frismben clúais.10. ‘Cen brón, cen duba, cen bás,
cen nach n-galar cen indgás,
is ed etargne n-Emne,
ní comtig a comamre. 
p. 8
11. ‘A beauty of a wondrous land,
Whose aspects are lovely,
Whose view is a fair country,
Incomparable is its haze.12. ‘Then if Aircthech 1 is seen,
On which dragonstones 2 and crystals drop
The sea washes the wave against the land,
Hair of crystal drops from its mane. 313. ‘Wealth, treasures of every hue,
Are in Ciuin, 4 a beauty of freshness,
Listening to sweet music,
Drinking the best of wine. 514. ‘Golden chariots in Mag Réin, 6
Rising with the tide to the sun,
Chariots of silver in Mag Mon, 7
And of bronze without blemish.15. ‘Yellow golden steeds are on the sward there,
Other steeds with crimson hue,
Others with wool upon their backs
Of the hue of heaven all-blue.
p. 9
11. ‘Cáine tíre adamri,
ata comgnúsi cadli,
asa rodarc find fia,
ní fríthid bíd a cia.12. ‘Má adcetha Aircthech íar tain
forsnig dracoin ocus glain,
dosnig am-muír fri tír toind,
trilsi glano asa moing.13. ‘Móini, dússi cach datho
hi Ciúin, cáine étdtho,
étsecht fri céul co m-bindi,
óol fíno óingrindi.14. ‘Carpait órdi hi Maig Réin,
taircet la tule don gréin,
carpait arggait i Maig Mon
ocus crédumi cen on.15. ‘Graig óir budi and fri srath
graig aile co corcardath,
graig aile ualann tar ais
co n-dath nime huleglais. 
p. 10
16. At sunrise there will come
A fair man illumining level lands;
He rides upon the fair sea-washed 1 plain,
He stirs the ocean till it is blood.17. ‘A host will come across the clear sea,
To the land they show their rowing;
Then they row to the conspicuous stone,
From which arise a hundred strains.18. ‘It sings a strain unto the host
Through long ages, it is not sad,
Its music swells 2 with choruses of hundreds–
They look for neither decay nor death.19. ‘Many-shaped Emne 3 by the sea,
Whether it be near, whether it be far,
In which are many thousands of motley 4 women,
Which the clear sea encircles.20. ‘If he has heard the voice of the music,
The chorus of the little birds from Imchiuin, 5
A small band of women will come from a height
To the plain of sport in which he is.  
p. 11
16. ‘Dofeith la turcbáil n-gréne
fer find forosna réde,
rédid mag find frismbein muir,
mescid fairggi co m-bí fuíl.17. ‘Dofeith in slúag tar muir glan,
don tír donaidbri imram,
imráid íarum dond licc léur
asa comérig cét céul.18. ‘Canid airbitiud dont ṡlóg
tré bithu sír, nat bí tróg,
tormaig céul co córib cét,
ní frescet aithbe ná éc.19. ‘Emne ildelbach fri rían,
bésu ocus, bésu chían,
i fil ilmíli m-brec m-ban,
immustimerchel muir glan.20. ‘Má ruchúala lúad in chiúil,
esnach énán a hImchiúin,
dofeith banchorén di haa
cusa cluchemag itaa. 
p. 12
21. ‘There will come happiness with health
To the land against which laughter peals,
Into Imchiuin at every season
Will come everlasting joy.22. ‘It is a day of lasting weather
That showers silver on the lands, 1
A pure-white cliff on the range of the sea,
Which from the sun receives its heat23. ‘The host race along Mag Mon, 2
A beautiful game, not feeble,
In the variegated land over a mass of beauty
They look for neither decay nor death.24. ‘Listening to music at night,
And going into Ildathach, 3
A variegated land. splendour on a diadem of beauty,
Whence the white cloud glistens.25. ‘There are thrice fifty distant isles
In the ocean to the west of us;
Larger than Erin twice
Is each of them, or thrice. 4 
p. 13
21. ‘Dofeith sóire la sláini
don tiír frisferat gáiri,
is i n-Imchiúin cach ági
dofeith búaine la háni.22. ‘Is lá suthaine síne
dosnig arggat i tíre,
aill erfind for idna réin
foafeid a gríss a gréin.23. ‘Graibnid in slóg íar Maig Mon,
cluche n-álaind, nad indron,
i mruig mrecht úas maisse mét,
ní frescat aithbe ná éc.24. ‘Étsecht fri céul i n-adig,
ocus techt i n-Ildathíg,
mruig mrecht, líg úas maisse mét,
asa taitni in nél find.25. ‘Fil trí cóictea inse cían
isind oceon frinn aníar;
is mó Érinn co fa dí
cach ái díib nó fa thrí. 
p. 14
26. ‘A great birth 1 will come after ages,
That will not be in a lofty place, 2
The son of a woman whose mate will not be known,
He will seize the rule of the many thousands.27. ‘A rule without beginning, without end, 3
He has created the world so that it is perfect,
Whose are earth and sea,
Woe to him that shall be under His unwill! 428. ‘’Tis He that made the heavens,
Happy he that has a white heart,
He will purify hosts under pure water, 5
’Tis He that will heal your sicknesses.29. ‘Not to all of you is my speech,
Though its great marvel has been made known:
Let Bran hear from the crowd of the world
What of wisdom has been told to him.30. ‘Do not fall on a bed of sloth,
Let not thy intoxication overcome thee,
Begin a voyage across the clear sea,
If perchance thou mayst reach the land of women.’ 
p. 15
26. ‘Ticfa már-gein íar m-bethaib
nad bía for a forclethaib,
mac mná nad festar céle,
gébid flaith na n-ilmíle.27. ‘Flaith cen tossach cen forcenn
dorúasat bith co forban,
isai talam ocus muir,
is mairgg bías fua étuil.28. ‘Is hé dorigni nime,
céinmair dia m-ba findchride,
glanfid slúagu fua linn glan,
is hé ícfes for tedman.29. ‘Ni dúib uili mo labre,
cia atfess a móramre:
étsed Bran de betho bróu
a n-di ecnæ adfét dóu.30. ‘Ná tuit fri lige lesce,
nachit-tróithad do mesce,
tinscan imram tar muir glan,
dús in rista tír na m-ban.’ 
p. 16
31. Thereupon the woman went from them, while they knew not whither she went. 1 And she took her branch with her. The branch sprang from Bran’s hand into the hand of the woman, nor was there strength in Bran’s hand to hold the branch.32. Then on the morrow Bran went upon the sea. The number of his men was three companies of nine. One of his foster-brothers and mates 2 was set over each of the three companies of nine. When he had been at sea two days and two nights, he saw a man in a chariot coming towards him over the sea. That man also sang thirty 3 other quatrains to him, and made himself known to him, 4 and said that he was Manannan the son of Ler, and said that it was upon him to go to Ireland after long ages, and that a son would be born to him, even Mongan son of Fiachna–that was the name which would be upon him.So he sang these thirty quatrains to him:33. ‘Bran deems it a marvellous beauty
In his coracle across the clear sea:
While to me in my chariot from afar
It is a flowery plain on which he rides about. 
p. 17
31. Luid in ben úadib íarom annadfetatar cia luid, ocus birt a cróib lee. Leblaing in chróib di láím Brain co m-bói for láim inna mná, ocus ní bói nert i láim Brain do gabáil inna cróibe.32. Luid Bran íarom arabárach for muir. Trí nonbuir a lín. Óinḟer forsnaib tríb nonburaib dia chomaltaib ocus comáisib. Ó robói dá lá ocus dí aidchi forsin muir, conacci a dochum in fer isin charput íarsin muir. Canaid in fer hísin dano trichait rand n-aile dóu, ocus sloindsi dóu ocus asbert ba hé Manannán mac Lir, ocus asbert bói aire tuídecht i n-Érinn íar n-aimseraib cíanaib, ocus nogigned mac úad .i. Mongán mac Fíachnai, ised foridmbíad. Cachain íarom in trichait rand sa dóu:–33. ‘Caine amre lasin m-Bran
ina churchán tar muir glan;
os mé im’ charput di chéin,
is mag scothach immaréid. 



2:1 Imram, lit. ‘rowing about,’ denotes a voyage voluntarily undertaken, as distinguished from longes, ‘a voyage of exile.’

2:2 Echtre, f. (a derivative of echtar = Lat. extra), lit. ‘outing,’ specially denotes expeditions and sojourns in Fairy-land, as in Echtra Bresail Bricc maic Briuin (LL. p. 170 b, 25), who stayed fifty years under Loch Láeg; Echtra Cormaic i Tír Tairngiri, Ir. Texte iii. p. 202; Echtra Nerai (Rev. Celt. x. p. 212), Echtra Nectain maic Alfroinn (LL. p. 189 b, 59) = Nechtán mac Collbrain, infra § 63, etc.

2:3 That it was the branch that produced the music, when shaken, appears from a similar incident in Echtra Cormaic, Ir. Texte iii. p. 212.

4:1 All the MSS. contain only twenty-eight quatrains.

4:2 aball, f., which glosses Lat. malus in Sg. 61 b, has come to denote any fruit-tree, as in fic-abull mór arsata, ‘a large ancient fig-tree,’ LBr. 158 a, 55. CL Stokes, Rev. Celt. x. p. 71, n. 3.

4:3 i.e. nomen regionis (gloss).

4:4 A kenning for ‘crested sea-waves.’ Cf. groig maic Lir, ‘the Son of Ler’s horses,’ Rev. Celt. p. 104. Zimmer misrenders: ‘um welche die rosse des meeres spielend auftauchen.’

4:5 Lit. ‘white-sided wave-swelling.’

4:6 Zimmer, following the corrupt reading of R (cethror instead of cetheoir), renders: ‘dem wohnsitz auf fussen von vier mann’!

4:7 i.e. nomen regionis (gloss), ‘White-Silver Plain.’

6:1 i.e. here below (gloss).

6:2 gairim is often used of the notes of birds, én gaires isint ṡail, ‘the bird that sings in the willow,’ Ir. Texte iii. p. 19.

6:3 trátha, the canonical hours, an allusion to church music. Zimmer, wrongly, ‘zu den zeiten.’

6:4 i.e. nomen regionis (gloss), ‘Silver-Cloud Plain.’

6:5 Zimmer, wrongly, ‘vor den gerichten.’

6:6 Lit. ‘with harshness.’ Zimmer, ‘fur die kehle’?

6:7 Cf. i lobrai ocus i n-ingás, Sergl. Conc. 10.

6:8 i.e. nomen regionis (gloss).

8:1 i.e. regio (gloss), ‘Bountiful Land.’

8:2 dracoin = Lai. dracontiae.

8:3 ‘Mane’ and ‘hair’ are frequent kennings in Irish poetry for the crest and spray of a wave, n-ed maras mong for muir, ‘while a ‘ested wave remains on the sea,’ Ir. Texte iii. p. 16. Cf. also the adj. tibrech, ‘hairy’ (from tibre .i. finda na grúaide flacbas in altan dia hése, Harl. 5280, fo. 41 a) in úas tuind tibrig, LL. 17 b, 2 = fri tuinn tibhrigh, wrongly explained by O’Clery, s.v. tibhrigh.

8:4 i.e. insola (gloss), i.e. nomen regionis (gloss), ‘Gentle Land.’

8:5 Cf. Sg. 122 b, where céitegrinne fíno glosses ‘nectar.’

8:6 ‘Plain of the Sea.’

8:7 i.e. regio (gloss), ‘Plain of Sports.’

10:1 Lit. ‘against which the sea beats.’

10:2 Lit. ‘it increases music.’

10:3 Here and in § 60 the nominative Emne is used instead of Emain (§§ 3, 10).

10:4 Ir. brec, ‘variegated,’ probably referring to their dress. Cf. cóíca ingen ildathach, Sergl. Conc. 45.

10:5 i.e. nomen regionis (gloss), ‘Very Gentle Land.’

12:1 Or, perhaps, if we read la suthaini síne, ‘It is through lasting weather (lit. lastingness of weather) that silver drops on the lands.’

12:2 i.e. mare, ‘Plain of Sports.’

12:3 i.e. nomen regions, ‘Many-coloured Land.’

12:4 This quatrain reappears in a somewhat modified form in a poem (Laud 615, p. 18) addressed to Colum Cille by Mongan, who had come from the Land of Promise (Tír Tairngiri) to meet the saint at Carraic Eolairg on Lough Foyle. See Appendix, p. 88.

14:1 i.e. Christ (gloss).

14:2 Lit. ‘upon its ridge-poles or roof-trees,’ alluding probably to the lowly birth of Christ.

14:3 Cf. ar attú cen tosach cen forcenn gl. qui ante creaturæ exordia idem esse non desinas, Ml. 110 d, is.

14:4 Cf. Stokes, Goid. p. 182: beith fo étoil mac Maire, ‘to he under the unwill of Mary’s Son.’

14:5 An allusion to baptism.

16:1 Zimmer renders ‘ob sin gegangen.’ But cía here means ‘whither’ (=Doric πεῖ, Strachan). Cf. noconḟess cía deochatar, LL. 290 a, 27. ni fetatar cia deochaid nó can donluid, Sergl. Conc. 12, etc. In the sense of ‘whether,’ cía occurs only in the phrase cía . . . cenco, ‘whether . . . or not,’ e.g.fó leiss cía nothiasta ass, fó leiss cenco tiasta, LL. 109a, 30; cía fogabad cenco fagbad, rabeindse ar a chind, LL. 51 b, 17.

16:2 Lit. ‘men of the same age.’

16:3 The MSS. again contain only twenty-eight quatrains.

16:4 Ir. slonnud means to make known one’s name, or patronymic, as in Rawl. B. 502, fo. 73 a, 2: Buchet a ainm, mac hui Inblæ a slonnud, or one’s native place, as in LU. 15 b, 5: ro íarfaig Finnan a slonniud de. Asbert friu: de Ultaib dam-sa.

Posted in religious themes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment


(ΣΥΝΕΧΕΙΑ ΑΠΟ 19/03/18)

Του Κωστή Παλαμά
(αφιερωμένο στον Πλήθωνα )

Οι Πολύθεοι

Μακαρισμένος εσύ που μελέτησες
να τον ορθώσης απάνω στους ώμους σου
το συντριμμένο ναό των Ελλήνων!
Του Νόμου τ’ άγαλμα σταίνεις κορώνα του,
στις μαρμαρένιες κολώνες του σκάλισες
τους λογισμούς των Πλωτίνων.

Είδες τον κόσμο κι ατέλειωτο κι άναρχο
ψυχών και θεών, μαζί κύριων και υπάκουων,
σφιχτοδετά κρατημένη αρμονία
και των καπνών και των ίσκιων τα είδωλα
παραμερίζοντας όλα, ίσα τράβηξες
προς την Αιτία
και σε κρυψώνα ιερό, και σωπαίνοντας
έσπειρες, έξω απ’ το μάτι του βέβηλου,
κ’ έπλασες λιόκαλη εσύ σπαρτιάτισσα
τη θυγατέρα σου την Πολιτεία.

Στους χριστιανούς τους μισόζωους ανάμεσα
ξαναζωντάνεψες Ολυμπους άγνωρους,
έθνη καινούριων αθανάτων κι άστρων
μέσα σε σένα Λυκούργοι και Πλάτωνες
απαντηθήκαν, το λόγο ξανάνιωσες
των Ζωροάστρων.

Κι αφού το τέκνο μεγάλωσες, ένιωσες
τότε μονάχα την κούραση, κ’ έγυρες
ζωή κατόχρονη ισόθεης σκέψης,
κι αλαφροπήρε σε ο θάνατος κ’ έφυγες
το μυστικό, τρισμκάριε, τον ίακχο
με τους Ολύμπιους θεούς να χορέψης.

Σοφός, κριτής και προφήτης μας μοίρασες
από το γάλα που εσένα σε πότισε
της Ουρανίας Αφροδίτης η ρώγα.
Του κόσμου αφήνεις το τέκνο, το θάμα σου
μα ο μισερός κι ο στραβός κι ο ζηλόφτονος
λυσσομανάει και το ρίχνει στη φλόγα.

Όμως ο αέρας τριγύρω στη φλόγα σου
πνοή σοφίας κι αλήθειες πνοή γίνεται,
κι από τη θράκα της φλόγας πετάχτη
στον ήλιο ολόισα ένας νους μεγαλόφτερος
τ’ αποκαίδια σου κρύβουμε γκόλφια μας,
και θησαυρός της φωτιάς σου είν’ η στάχτη!

…και ένα άγνωστο ποίημα του Καβάφη,”μετά το κολύμβημα”:

“Δεν είχεν άδικο όλως διόλου ο φτωχός ο Γεμιστός
να θέλει και να λέη να ξαναγίνουμε εθνικοί.
Η πίστη μου η αγία πάντα βέβαια σεβαστή-
αλλά μεχρι τινός είναι ευνόητος ο Γεμιστός. ” 

Με αυτούς τους στίχους ο Κωστής Παλαμάς απέδωσεπαραστατικά ένα ιστορικό γεγονός που συνέβη στηνΚωνσταντινούπολη μετά τη δεύτερη άλωσή της (1453). Πρόκειται για την καύση του πονήματοςΝόμων Συγγραφή ή Περί Νόμων τουΓεώργιου Γεμιστού-Πλήθωνος από τον τότε πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γεννάδιο Β΄ Σχολάριο.  γεγονός που αρκετοίσήμερα ερμηνεύουν ως ενδεικτικό του αυταρχικού χαρακτήρα καιτης μισαλλοδοξίας του Σχολαρίου. Τι ήταν όμως αυτό που οδήγησετον Γεννάδιο Β΄ να κάψει το χειρόγραφο του Γεμιστού-Πλήθωνος,μαθήματα του οποίου παρακολούθησε κάποτε και ο ίδιος στονΜυστρά; Τι ήταν αυτό που εξόργισε τον Σχολάριο; Ποιο ήταν τοπεριεχόμενο τουΝόμων Συγγραφή;

Ο Κωστής Παλαμάς αναφέρει επιγραμματικά την αιτία που παρακίνησε τον Σχολάριο στην ενέργειά του: ΗΝόμων Συγγραφή δεναναφέρει τον Χριστό, ούτε την Παναγία. Δοξάζει όμως ως θεούς«στοιχειά» και «δαίμονες», καθώς και «είδωλα» άλλων λαών. Αςδούμε όμως ποιος ήταν ο Γεώργιος Γεμιστός-Πλήθων και ποιο ήταντο περιεχόμενο της σκέψης του. Πρώιμα χρόνια και εγκύκλιος παιδεία. Η επωνυμία Πλήθων είναι μεταγενέστερη. Την έδωσε ο ίδιοςστον εαυτό του, το πιθανότερο όταν βρέθηκε στη Φλωρεντία για ναθυμίζει αυτό του φιλοσόφου που τόσο θαύμαζε τη σκέψη. τουΠλάτωνος. Το κανονικό του ονοματεπώνυμο ήταν ΓεώργιοςΓεμιστός και γεννήθηκε στην Κωνσταντινού-πολη μεταξύ των ετών1355 κα 1360. Ελαχιστότατες είναι οι πληροφορίες για τηνοικογένειά του.

Ο Σχολάριος αναφέρεται στην ευσέβεια των γονέωντου:«και ταύτα ευσεβών και ιερών πατέρων και σοφών γεγονώς».1 Κατά πάσα πιθανότητα πατέρας του ήταν ο Δημήτριος Γεμιστός,2 «πρωτονοτάριος της Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας», δεδομένου ότι οπρωτότοκος εκ των δύο γιών του ονομαζόταν Δημήτριος.3 Το ίδιοπενιχρές είναι και οι πληροφορίες για τους δασκάλους του. Κάποιοιυποθέτουν ότι θα πρέπει να μαθήτευσε κοντά στον ΔημήτριοΚυδώνη, κάτι όμως που δεν επιβεβαιώνεται από τις πηγές. Υπάρχειαπλώς μια έμμεση αναφορά από τον ίδιο τον Γεμιστό ότι κάποτεπροσέτρεξε στη βοήθεια του Κυδώνη για την ερμηνεία κάποιων χωρίων του Πλάτωνα.Το σίγουρο πάντως είναι ότι νεαρός ων μετέβη το 1380 στην Ανδριανούπολη, η οποία μετά την άλωσή της από τον σουλτάνοΜουράτ Α΄ το 1365, έγινε πρωτεύουσα του οθωμανικού κράτους καικέντρο μαθήσεως κατά το πρότυπο του Καΐρου και της Βαγδάτης.Εκεί, σύμφωνα με μια ανεπιβεβαίωτη πληροφορία του Σχολαρίου,μαθήτευσε κοντά σε κάποιον πολυθεϊστή Ιουδαίο, ονόματιΕλισσαίο.4 Ο ίδιος με επικριτικό τόνο, αναφέρει ότι ο Γεμιστός γνώρισε την αριστοτελική φιλοσοφία μέσω της ερμηνείας τουΆραβα φιλοσόφου Αβερρόη (γνωστός και ως Ιμπν Ρουσντ, 1126-1198), ενώ μυήθηκε και στη σκέψη του Ζωροάστρη.

Λαμβάνονταςυπ’ όψιν ότι η τυπική μόρφωση των λογίων της παλαιολόγειαςεποχής περιελάμβανε τη σπουδή της φιλοσοφίας, της ιστορίας, τωνμαθηματικών, της αστρονομίας, της νομικής και της μουσικής, θαπρέπει να υποθέσουμε ότι και ο Γεμιστός διδάχθηκε ταπροαναφερθέντα αντικείμενα.5 Βάσει των πληροφοριών τουΣιλβέστρου Συρόπουλου και του Ιωάννη Ευγενικού, οι οποίοιαναφέρουν ότι ο Μάρκος Ευγενικός χρημάτισε μαθητής τουΓεμιστού, πρέπει να εικάσουμε ότι κάποτε ο τελευταίος επέστρεψεστην Κωνσταντινούπολη όπου δίδαξε φιλοσοφία.

Μετάβαση και παραμονή στον Μυστρά. Περί το 1405 ο Γεμιστός μεταβαίνει στον Μυστρά«ορισμώ» του αυτοκράτορα Μανουήλ Β΄ Παλαιολόγου. Ο Σχολάριος σε μιαεπιστολή του προς τη δέσποινα Θεοδώρα αναφέρει ότι ο Γεμιστόςεξορίστηκε στον Μυστρά, πιθανόν μετά από κατηγορίες του ίδιουτου Σχολαρίου για στροφή προς τον παγανισμό.6 Στον Μυστρά, πουτότε ήταν θύλακας του βυζαντινού πολιτισμού, ο Γεμιστός διδάσκεικαι συγγράφει φιλοσοφία, αστρονομία, ιστορία και γεωγραφία.Συντάσσει, επίσης, συνόψεις πολλών κλασικών έργων. Αποτέλεσματης δραστηριότητάς του είναι να αποκτήσει τη φήμη ενός σοφούδιδασκάλου και λογίου. Προσελκύει αρκετούς μαθητές μεταξύ τωνοποίων ξεχωρίζουν ο μετέπειτα επίσκοπος Νικαίας Βησσαρίων (οοποίος θα γίνει μετά της Άλωση και καρδινάλιος τηςΡωμαιοκαθολικής Εκκλησίας), ο ιστορικός της Αλώσεως ΛαόνικοςΧαλκοκονδύλης, ο μετέπειτα σφοδρός του πολέμιος και πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γεννάδιος Β΄ Σχολάριος και ο δεσπότης τουΜυστρά Θεόδωρος Β΄ Παλαιολόγος (1407-1443). Από τον κύκλοόμως των μαθητών του αυτός που ασπάστηκε απαρασάλευτα τιςπαγανιστικές δοξασίες του Γεμιστού ήταν ο Δημήτριος ΡαούλΚαβάκης. Εκτός από δάσκαλος φαίνεται ότι ο Γεμιστός υπηρέτησε καιως σύμβουλος του δεσπότη Θεόδωρου και τιμήθηκε με κάποιοκρατικό αξίωμα, ίσως του δικαστού. Οι δεσπότες του Μυστράτίμησαν επίσης τον ίδιο και τους γιούς τους με τη δωρεά γαιών. Με δύο υπομνήματα μεταξύ των ετών 1416 και 1423, ένα προς τοναυτοκράτορα Μανουήλ Β΄ Παλαιολόγο («Περί των εν τηΠελοποννήσω πραγμάτων») και ένα προς το δεσπότη του ΜορέωςΘεόδωρο Β΄ Παλαιολόγο («Συμβουλευτικός περί τηςΠελοποννήσου») καταθέτει τις πολιτικές του απόψεις για το πώς θαέπρεπε να αναδιοργανωθεί το κράτος ώστε να αποτραπεί ηοθωμανική κατάκτηση. Το 1426/27 ο Ιωάννης Η΄ Παλαιολόγος κατάτην επίσκεψη του στην Πελοπόνηνησο, προκειμένου να παραβρεθείστο γάμο του αδελφού του Κωνσταντίνου, ζητά τη συμβουλή τουΓεμιστού πάνω στο επίκαιρο τότε ζήτημα της ένωσης τωνΕκκλησιών.

Συμμετοχή στη σύνοδο της Φερράρας-Φλωρεντίας.

Το κύρος του Γεμιστού είναι πλέον τόσο μεγάλο όπου προσκαλείται από τον αυτοκράτορα Ιωάννη Η΄ Παλαιολόγο να συμμετάσχει στις εργασίες τις συνόδου Φεράρρας-Φλωρεντίας. Αναχωρεί μαζί με τα υπόλοιπα μέλη της αποστολής το Νοέμβριο του 1437 και φτάνει στη Βενετία το Φεβρουάριο του 1438. Η συμμετοχή του στη σύνοδο θεωρείται δυσεξήγητη. ενόσω βρισκόταν στον Μυστρά είχε εκφράσει τις επιφυλάξεις του για την επιτυχία του εγχειρήματος. Θεωρούσε μάλιστα την αποστολή επισκόπων της Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας στη Δύση, ατιμωτική. Από την άλλη, εξελάμβανε το Χριστιανισμό ως μια παρένθεση στη μακρά πορεία του Ελληνισμού. Ενός Ελληνισμού που θα έπρεπε να επιστρέψει –κατά τον ίδιο- στη ρίζες του. Παρά ταύτα ο Γεμιστός συμμετείχε στις εργασίες της συνόδου και όπως αναφέρει ο Σιλβέστρος Συρόπουλος, ο οποίος διέσωσε τα πρακτικά της συνόδου, αναίρεσε πολλά από τα επιχειρήματα των Λατίνων ως σοφιστείες και συνέβαλε στο να μη υποκύψουν σε ατιμωτικές υποχωρήσεις ο ιεράρχες της Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας. Οι πληροφορίες του Συρόπουλου ενέχουν όμως το στοιχείο της υπερβολής. η προσφορά του Γεμιστού στις εργασίες της συνόδου ήταν μάλλον ασήμαντη. Σημειωτέον ότι στη Φλωρεντία υποχρεώθηκε να μείνει σε ανάρρωση επί μακρόν. Ο ίδιος, πάντως, δεν υπέγραψε τον Όρο της «ενώσεως» προτιμώντας να αναχωρήσει μαζί με τον Σχολάριο και τον Δημήτριο Παλαιολόγο πριν τη λήξη των εργασιών της συνόδου (6η Ιουλίου 1439).

Κατά την παραμονή του στη Φλωρεντία, μετά από πρόσκληση ορισμένων Φλωρεντινών ουμανιστών, παρέδωσε μια σειρά διαλέξεων με θέμα τις διαφορές μεταξύ Πλάτωνος και Αριστοτέλους. Κατ’ εκείνο τον καιρό ελάχιστα ήταν τα έργα του Πλάτωνα που μελετούνταν στη Δύση. Ο Γεμιστός ουσιαστικά επανεισήγαγε σε μεγαλύτερο βαθμό την πλατωνική σκέψη στον δυτικό κόσμο, κλωνίζοντας την κυριαρχία που ασκούσε ο Αριστοτέλης στη δυτική σκέψη. Η συμβολή του στην κατάρρευση του δυτικού σχολαστικισμού ήταν αναντίρρητη.

Ο Κόζιμο των Μεδίκων (Cosimo de’ Medici) παρακολούθησε τις διαλέξεις του Γεμιστού και εμπνεύστηκε την ίδρυση της Πλατωνικής Ακαδημίας (Accademia Platonica) στη Φλωρεντία. Η Ακαδημία ιδρύθηκε το 1459. Ο Μαρτσίλιο Φιτσίνο (Marsilio Ficino), Φλωρεντινός ουμανιστής και πρώτος διευθυντής της Ακαδημίας, απέδωσε στον Γεμιστό τον έσχατο φόρο τιμής χαρακτηρίζοντάς τον «δεύτερο Πλάτωνα». Μέλος της Ακαδημίας ήταν και ο περίφημος λόγιος Πίκο ντε λα Μιράντολα (Giovanni Pico della Mirandola).

Ενόσω βρισκόταν ακόμη στη Φλωρεντία ο Γεμιστός συνόψισε τις διαλέξεις του σε έναν τόμο υπό τον τίτλο «Περί ων Αριστοτέλης προς Πλάτωνα διαφέρεται» (γνωστός στο δυτικό κόσμο με τον τίτλο De Differentiis). Ο Γεώργιος Σχολάριος απάντησε με το «Υπέρ Αριστοτέλους αντιλήψεων», το οποίο ανταπαντήθηκε από τον Πλήθωνα με το έργο «Περί τας υπέρ Αριστοτέλους Γεωργίου του Σχολαρίου αντιλήψεις», γραμμένο το 1448.

Επιστροφή στον Μυστρά και τελευταία χρόνια του βίου.

Μετά την επιστροφή του στον Μυστρά ίδρυσε μία σχολή. Εκεί δίδαξε έναν δικής του εμπνεύσεως πολυθεϊσμό. Κάποιοι δε από τους μαθητές του προσεύχονταν μπροστά στα αγάλματα των πολυθεϊστικών θεοτήτων. Σε αυτή την περίοδο πρέπει να ενταχθεί η συγγραφή του σπουδαιότερου έργου του, του Νόμων Συγγραφή ή Περί Νόμων.

Απεβίωσε, πλήρης ημερών στη Σπάρτη την πρώτη πρωϊνή ώρα της 26ης Ιουνίου του 1452. Ετάφη στον Μυστρά με όλες τις χριστιανικές τιμές. Το 1465 ο ηγεμόνας του Ρίμινι Σιγκισμόντο Παντόλφο Μαλατέστα (Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta), κατέλαβε για μικρό χρονικό διάστημα τον Μυστρά. Φεύγοντας πήρε μαζί του και τα λείψανα του Πλήθωνος, τα οποία εναπέθεσε μέσα σε μαρμάρινη λάρνακα στην εκκλησία του αγίου Φραγκίσκου (Tempio Malatestiano) με εντυπωσιακό επίγραμμα, «ώστε ο Μεγάλος Δάσκαλος να βρίσκεται ανάμεσα σε ελεύθερους ανθρώπους». Εκεί φυλάσσονται μέχρι σήμερα. Στο επίγραμμα διαβάζουμε: «Τα λείψανα του Γεμιστού από το Βυζάντιο, του ηγήτορα των φιλοσόφων του καιρού του, ο Σιγκισμόντο Παντόλφο Μαλατέστα, γιος του Παντόλφο, κατά τον πόλεμο που διεξήχθη στην Πελοπόννησο εναντίον του αυτοκράτορα των Τούρκων, φλογιζόμενος από άπειρη αγάπη προς τους λογίους, φρόντισε να μεταφερθούν και να ενταφιασθούν εδώ. 1465».


Απόστολος Μιχαηλίδης

Διδάκτωρ Θεολογίας Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών

M.A. in Indian Philosophy & Religion, Banaras Hindu University Ινδιών.


1 Σχολαρίου Άπαντα, τ.IV, 155.2.

2 Χατζημιχαήλ, υποσημ. σ. 16. 

3 Αυτόθι.

4 Επιστολή τη βασιλίσση [Θεοδώραν Ασανίναν] περί του βιβλίου του Γεμιστού. 

5 Χατζημιχαήλ, σ. 17. 

6 Ο Θ. Ζήσης δεν έχει καμία αμφιβολία ότι ο ίδιος ο Σχολάριος κατήγγειλε τονΠλήθωνα στην «πολιτικήν και πνευματικήν ηγεσίαν», βλ. σ. 317.

ΠΗΓΗ alkman1.blogspot,
απαντα Καβάφη Ρένου Ήρκου και 
Στάντη Αποστολίδη εκδοσεις:Τα ΝΕΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ,
“ΚΑΣΤΑΛΙΑ ΠΗΓΗ” , Κώσταs Π. Μανδηλάs


Posted in religious themes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment



Tnou blessed One, loud Thunderer of the heavens,
Who boldest in their place the cherubim,
I pray thee give me now a little rest,
Since I have uttered what is all so true.
5 For weary baa my heart within me grown.
Why should my heart be quivering uow again,
And my soul, lashed as with a whip, be forced
To utter forth its oracle to all?
Yet once more I will speak aloud all things
10 Which God impels me to proclaim to men.
0 men, in godlike form and image made,
Why do ye vainly wander, and not walk
The straight path, keeping ever in your mind
The immortal Maker? One God rules alone,
15 Unutterable, dwelling in the sky,
Self-constituted, and invisible,

Though he himself alone beholds an things.
No sculptor’s hand formed him, nor by man’s art
Appears his image in gold or ivory ;
20 But he proclaims hie own eternity
As one who is, and was, and yet shall be.
For who is he, frail mortal, that with eyes
Can look on God? Or who could bear to hear
The name alone of the great God of heaven
25 Who rules the world? He by a word all things
Created, heaven, and sea, and tireless sun,
And the full moon, and stare that shed forth light,
The fnighty mother Tethys, fountains, streams,
Imperishable fire, and days and nights.
30 This is the God who made four-lettered Adam,
The first one formed, whose name fills east and west
And south and north. The same is he who fixed
The type and form of man, and made the beasttt,
And creeping things, and such as spread the wing.
35 Y e do not reverence or worship God,
But vainly go astray and bow the knee
To serpents, and to cats make sacrifice,
And other idols, statues made of stone,
And sit before the doors of godless shrines.

40 Y e guard against the God who keeps all things,
And in the wickedness of stones delight,
Forgetful of the immortal Saviour’s judgment,
Who made the heaven and earth. Woe to a race
That has delight in blood, deceitful, vile,
45 Ungodly, double-tongued, malicious men,
Unchaste, idolatrous, designing fraud,
An evil madness raving in their breasts.
They plunder, and maintain a shameless soul ;
For no rich man will with another share.
50 But a dire evil shall to all men come,
Faith they will nowhere hold, and many wives
And widows will in secret others love
Because of gain, and they will not observe
Life’s sacred bond if only they get men.
55 But when Rome also over Egypt rules,
Having one end in view, then shall appear
The mighty kingdom of the immortal king
Set over men. A holy king shall come
Wielding the scepter over every land
60 Unto all ages of advancing time.
And then will the stern wrath of Latian men
Rome thrice expose to pitiable fate.
And all mankind shall perish in their homes,
When from the heavens a fiery cataract flows.
65 Ah me, unhappy ! When shall that day come,
And judgment of the immortal God’s great king?
Now surely, 0 ye cities, ye are built
And all adorned with temples and race-grounds,
Markets, and images of precious stone,
’70 All that ye may come to a bitter day.
For it will come whenever there shall pass

The smell of sulphur among all mankind.
But these things severally I will tell
In as many cities as men carry vice.
75 From the great Cresars Beliar shall come
Hereafter, and lfhall stand on mountain height,
And stay the sea, and the great fiery sun,
And shining moon, and make the dead stand up,
And perform many miracles with men.
80 But nothing to perfection will he bring,
But many mortals he will lead astray,
Elect and faithful Hebrews; also men
“Without law, such as never heard God’s word.
But when the threatenings of the mighty God
85 Shall draw near, and upon the earth shall come
The flaming power as in a billowy wave,
It shall burn Beliar too, and faithless men,
All, even as many as put their trust in him.
And then the world shall by a woman’s hands
90 Be governed and persuaded in all things.
And when o’er all the world a widow reigns,

And dings the gold and silver in the sea,
And brass and iron of perishable man
Flings in the dood, then all earth’s elements
95 Shall widow-like be waste and desolate.
And God who dwells on high will roll the heaven
Together, even as a scroll is rolled.
And on the noble land and on the sea
The entire multiform arch of heaven shall falL
100 A cataract of glowing fire shall flow
Unceasing, and bum land and sea and sky;
Creation itself will he melt into one,
And take out that which tends to purity.
The luminous laughing spheres shall be no more,
105 Nor night, nor dawn, nor many days of care,
Nor spring-time, summer, winter, autumn more.
And then shall come God’s judgment, in the midst
Of a great age when all these things shall be.
• • • *
0 navigable waters, and all lands
110 Whe1·ever the sun rises and goes down,
All things shall be subjected unto him
Who comes a second time into the world;
For from the first he recognized his power.
• • * *
But when the threatenings of the mighty God
115 Had been fulfilled, which once he threatened those
Who made a tower in the Assyrian land
(And they were all one language, and resolved
To mount aloft into the starry heaven),

Straightway the Immortal added to the winds
120 A mighty force, and tempests from above
Hurled down the huge tower, and among mankind
Raised up confusion, wherefore mortals gave
Unto that city the name of Babylon.
But when the tower fell, and the tongues of men
126 Became discordant, all the earth was filled
With mortals, and divided among kings.
And then appeared the generation tenth
Of mortal men, from the time when the 1lood
Came on the earlier race. And Kronos reigned,
130 And Titan and Japetus, whom men esteemed
Fairest of Gaia and Uranus born,
And gave them also names of earth and heaven,
Because they were roost excellent of men.
Into three parts divided they the earth,
135 According to the inheritance of each,
And each ruled his own portion, without strife;
For they were bound by the paternal oath,
And equal were their portions. But old age
Came on the father, and Jus time was full,
140 And he died; but the sons, infringing oaths,

Contended with each other in fierce strife,
Who should hold regal honor, and bear rule
Over all mortals. Then did Kronos fight
And Titan with the rest. But Rhea, and Gaia,
145 And garland-loving Venus, Demeter,
And Vesta, and Dione golden-haired
Brought them to friendship, and a council called
Of all the kings and brother!!, and near kin,
And also others of ancestral blood,
150 And they decided Kronos should be king,
For he was oldest and of noblest form.
But Titan placed on Kronos mighty oaths
To rear no male posterity, that he

Himself might reign when age and fate should fall
155 On Kronos. So whenever Rhea bore,
Bet~ide her sat the Titans, and destroyed
All the male issue; but the female lived,
And were left to the mother’s nursing care.
But when at the third birth the honored Rhea
160 Brought forth illustrious Juno, and they saw
With wondering eyes a race of females born,
The_ savage Titans took themselves away.
Then when a male child Rhea brought to birth
She sent him quickly into Phrygia,
165 There to be reared in secret, having bound
Three Cretans by an oath to do her will.
They called him Dia, for he was sent away.
Poseidon also secretly she sent;
And Pluto, third, by women’s helping hand
170 Did Rhea, coming to Dodona, bear,

Whence flows Enrotas’ moistened path away,
And, with Peneius mixed, pours in the sea
Its water, and men call it Stygian.
But when the Titans heard of hidden sons
1 ’75 Begotten by King Kronos and his wife,
Straightway assembled Titan sixty youths,
Bound Kronos and his wife Rhea in chains,
Hid them in earth, and kept them under guard.
And then the sons of mighty Kronos heard,
180 And they stirred up a great tumultuous war.
And this was the beginning of dire war
Among all mortals, for it was indeed
With men the primal origin of war.
Then God sent evil on the Titan race,
185 And all from Titan and from Kronos sprung
Died. But as time rolled on these kingdoms rose;
Egyptian, Persian; Median, Ethiopian,
Assyrian-Babylon,and Macedon,
Egyptian yet again, then that of Rome.
190 And then a message of the mighty God
Pressed on my heart, and bade me prophecy
On all the earth, and ‘in the minds of kings
Those things deposit which are yet to be.




Copyright, 1890, by HUNT & EATON,NEW YORK.

Posted in religious themes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment