Sunday's Thoughts
by Alice-Alexandra-Sofia

Page_4 Works of Philo of Alexandria


Introductory Note

The Foundation of Philo’s Doctrine

The Summary of Assertions

Conclusive Remarks







…there out of Israel wicked men who persuaded many, saying

“Let us go and make a covenant with the heathens…

for since we departed from them we have had much evil…”

Then… they forsook the holy covenant,

and joined themselves to the heathens

for practicing deeds of evil…

{1 Maccabees 1:11, 15}



Introductory Notes


The conquests of Alexander of Macedonia imposed the Greek culture and customs unto many “barbarian” nations and formed new establishment, which received the name of “Hellenistic civilization.” The essence of such an establishment is the set of modifiable political and social structures based on a specific knowledge framework – heathenism: the Orphic serpentine theology, philosophical, political, and social doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, and philosophizing as the technique for obtaining additional knowledge. Within the framework, the ruling group maintains some flexibility of beliefs, strategies, and methods. The flexibility is limited by the main purpose: unification under the center, which possesses the absolute power over all and defines the limits for all and everything – laws, norms of behavior, rites of worship, and patterns of thinking*1*.

Alexandria – the city founded by Alexander (in 332 B.C.) at the place, which he saw in a dream, became the political capital of Egypt, the cultural and business center of the his empire, and some kind of a melting pot for customs, cults, languages, mystical and philosophical doctrines. The majority of citizens were Macedonians and Greeks; the general population included Egyptians – the natives and the Jews – mostly prisoners of wars [Shipley 214–215], as well as representatives of other nations.

With time, the Jewish colony of Alexandria became one of the biggest and richest in Diaspora. In A.D. 40, its leader was Philo Judaeus or Philo of Alexandria, a Pharisee from the tribe of Levi. One Philo’s brother was responsible for collection of the custom dues for all goods, which Egypt imported (the tax collector); one of his sons married Bernice, the sister of King Herod Agrippa I – the last of the kings mentioned in the Bible {Acts 25:13, 26; 26:1, 28–32}.  Another Philo’s brother became the apostate who assumed a Roman name (Tiberius Alexander) and was appointed the Procurator of Judea and then, the Prefect of Egypt.

Philo received a traditional national Jewish education, yet, devoted himself to the extensive studies in the Greek language, culture, and especially, philosophy. In the pursuit of heathen – therefore, inappropriate for the descendent of Levi as well as for any pious Jew – knowledge, Philo came to the agreement with the Egyptian symbolism; subsequently, he adopted the Pythagorean doctrine, Stoicism, Platonism, and some other concepts, which entertained the Greek elite.

However, his contemporaries did not accept his main creation – “Hellenistic Judaism,” although Philo was in a position of some kind of the authority within the Alexandrian Jewish colony and even travelled in Rome to ask the emperor do not force the Jews to install the emperor’s statues in the synagogues.

Many books and Internet publications are devoted to analysis of the Philo’s writings*2*. Some of researchers recognize Philo of Alexandria as the first Jewish philosopher, the prominent contributor into dualistic philosophy (which in a due time produced Marxist dialectics), and as a creator of the “Hellenistic Judaism.” Contemporary researchers still analyze the Philo’s influence on the mainstream and local (Alexandrian) Judaism, early Christianity, Gnosticism, and philosophy; for instance, in 1937–1986, the scholars conducted about 1600 studies of Philo’s works in eight languages including English, French, German, Hebrew, and Italian [Radice and Runia xxiii–xxiv].

However, the essence of the Philo’s phenomenon remains unclear.

According to the Laws of Moses, any apostate who spoke for idols or offers own fantasies as the words of God, had to be put to death {Deuteronomy 13:1–18}, because the strength of ancient Israel was in the pure uncontaminated knowledge of God

Thus, two types of apostates came into existence: those who reject their religion openly (and sometimes face the deadly consequences), and those who apparently follow the traditional religion, rituals, and manner of life, yet, secretly work on destruction of their previous religion.

Was Philo a conscious apostate or a simple man, who was overwhelmed with the apparent splendor of the imaginary worlds and myths of Greece and Egypt, and who shared them with his surrounding similarly to a poor and naïve slave–child who overheard the fairy tales of his owners and began to preach them to the others in an attempt to satisfy own longing for admittance into the forbidden world?

If Philo did not realize own apostasy, his example discloses the risk of indiscretion with the heathen theological and philosophical knowledge: when there is no solid foundation, a person might become a devotee of “other gods” without noticing own transformation.

The Philo’s relative openly rejected the religion of his ancestors; it looks like Philo intentionally took another road.

If Philo consciously accepted the heathenism, yet, desired to keep his social status and position within the Alexandrian Jewish colony, his first objective could be the logically justified assertion of the common foundation for two contradictory and irreconcilable systems – monotheistic Judaism and Greek polytheistic mythical and symbolic dream world named philosophy. Acknowledgment of the mutual foundation would allow firstly, incorporation of the heathen concepts into the Judaic theological system, then, its concealed transformation, and ultimately, its manifestation as the cult of idol–worshipers.



The Foundation of Philo’s Doctrine


The sacred texts of any religion convey the truth, which must remain absolute if the religion is expected to survive. Consequently, in the religious matters, the richness of imagination becomes the greatest danger, because symbolic/allegorical interpretation allows assigning of any meaning to any text according to the morality, outlook, experience, and productivity of imagination of an interpreter.

In brief, three roots of symbolism*3* make it unacceptable for those who attempt to achieve the complete understanding and to create the adequate knowledge of the actuality:

1/ symbols convey the simplified assumptions concerning the nature of things; with the contemporary language, it might be said that a symbol is a simplified model, which does not convey the generalized knowledge with the complexity sufficient for precise re–creation of the reality that the symbol is expected to preserve for other time–space–complexity settings

2/ interpretation of symbols depends on personal knowledge, conditions, purposes, and terms of existence, therefore, there is no possibility to convey the generalized common knowledge, which would be accessible and which would appeal to the reasoning or common sense of all people who would accept the symbol as a guidance for actions.

3/ symbolism is the product of the mind that operates with insufficient knowledge and ascribes the name of truth to fantasies created by imagination.

In summary, symbolism results in creation, dissemination, and acceptance of false knowledge, because a symbol does not convey the true meaning: symbolism is the language of insufficiency and misunderstanding; as such, it became a distinguishing feature of those who neither comprehend the true meaning of the actuality nor possess the knowledge sufficient for comprehension of the actuality.

Consequently, the observer, who desires to create the adequate knowledge of the actuality, should not use symbolism: symbolism must be left for dream worlds (e.g., establishment of the secret orders and heathen cults), entertainment, fairy tales, and science fiction writings.

The history of human thought reveals the constant struggle between knowledge of truth/actuality and dream worlds of symbolism. This struggle grew into the full–fledged war after the Apostles began preaching of the Gospels. Eventually, the plague of symbolic–mythical–magical thinking prevailed in the West: it became the foundation of the European civilization and religious denominations created by the philosophizing theologians who imposed their interpretation of heathen philosophical doctrines onto the Holy Scriptures.

During centuries, philosophizing theologians and scientists elaborated symbolic descriptions and rules of their interpretation; ultimately, they substituted simplified knowledge transferred through imaginary worlds of symbols and their interpretations for truth of the actuality: a symbol received the status of the reality. Similarly to the main heathen doctrine – the Orphism, the European theology became the specific knowledge framework – the all–fitting motherboard on which any symbolic imaginary world can be built and any new version of the Inferno of false knowledge and denigration of the image of God and its carrier–man can be assembled.

Symbolism became the main fuel for the Philo’s imagination and the main pillar of his dream world; Philo applied the Egyptian symbolism, allegorical interpretation, and the language of Greek heathen philosophy toward the Books of Moses. As a result, with the Egyptian method of symbolic interpretation of the sacred for them myths (the Egyptian priests interpreted their myths according to the current needs of pharaoh and for maintenance of the social and political order), Philo transformed the Books of Moses into the heathen philosophical treatise – a collection of myths and allegories compiled with unguarded imagination.

Philo’s imagination initially was recognized as the “divine inspiration,” and the Philo’s “Hellenistic Judaism” – the mixture of Judaic, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean concepts, compiled with the Egyptian method of allegorical interpretation, penetrated writings of the early Christian theologians who then, determined the theological foundation of the West (papal church of Rome).

In the East (Byzantine Church), the struggle against contamination of the Christian doctrine with the essentially heathen philosophical constructions of Philo and his followers continued until the fourteenth century.



The Summary of Philo’s Assertions


Within any ancient body of knowledge, symbolism, philosophy, and theology were inseparable: the Egyptian priests, scribes, and astrologers practiced “true philosophizing” *4*, and the Greek philosophers were initiated into the secret mysteries performed at temples [Chaeremon Fragment 10  23; Plato Letters II:314a–b, VII:341c–d ]. The “true philosophizing” in the temple became the source of symbolical mythic theology of the Egyptians, political theology of the ancient Greek polis, and the multitude of heathen religions and cults (including cults of divine emperors, leaders of religious and political establishments, and the state).

Writings of Philo illustrate the results of symbolic–allegorical thinking, or “true philosophizing.” In particular (from 1 to 10), Philo

1/ Philo asserted that Greek philosophy originated from the Books of Moses; he portrayed Moses as the philosopher and cosmopolite who teaches “Take heed to thyself” and who learned about existence of “the active cause” – the unmixed “intellect of the universe.” Consequently, for Philo, the wisdom of the Egyptians became “the very summits of philosophy” [On the Creation II.8; On the Confusion of Tongues XXII.106; On the Migration of Abraham II.8].

By transforming Moses into a philosopher proficient in Egyptian “wisdom,” Philo attempts to reverse the process of cognition of knowledge of God and, in fact, to return to Egypt from which God freed the chosen nation. Indeed, Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of Egyptians, yet, when he descended from God and saw how his tribesmen worship the Egyptian idol, he broke the tablets of the Law made by God {Acts 7:22; Exodus 32:1–35}: the idol–worshipers are not worthy to receive the knowledge of God; their wisdom is perplexity, and their fate is ignorance and oblivion.    

By accepting Egyptian “wisdom,” Philo repeats the actions of his ancestors who after exodus from Egypt and deliverance from physical slavery, were not able to overcome the spiritual slavery and returned back, to the known idols of the past. Indeed, physical freedom – e.g., to travel and to possess anything wanted – does not mean the true freedom: the freedom to cognize the truth and to choose the good.

Definitely, it is not by accident that Philo attempts to transform Moses into the adept of Egyptian “wisdom.” The laws of Moses are the heart of Judaism; therefore, recognition of Moses’ Egyptian roots would facilitate transformation of Judaism into the heathen cult. Many centuries later, the Philo’s “Moses–as–Egyptian–philosopher” assertion received its logical completion in the Sigmund Freud’s “Moses–the–Egyptian” speculations *5*.

2/ Philo presents the Paradise, the tree of life, and the Abraham’s journey as the allegories and symbols, along with definition of the Babel confusion of languages as “the fable” compared with the Homer’s description of the battle for Olympus, and advises his readers against literal comprehension of the creation of the Paradise because Philo understands it as the “fabulous nonsense” [On the Confusion of Tongues II.4; Questions and Answers on Genesis I.8–11; Allegorical Interpretation I, XIV. 43–44].

3/ Philo ascribes to Abraham the state of ecstasy and “divine madness”; according to the Philo’s symbolical interpretation of Genesis 15:12–18, the sunset and darkness became the indications that Abraham lost his mind and was in a trance possessed by “enthusiasm” and “madness” with his spirit removed, when God established a covenant with him [Who Is the Heir of Divine Things LII.258, 263; LIII.264–265].

However, the Scriptures do not mention that God of wisdom and knowledge {1 Kings 2:3; Proverbs 2:6–7; 21:30; Wisdom 6:12; 7:7, 15–16; 8:21} ever spoke with insane humans: divination or “divine madness” is “divine” only for the heathens. God healed the possessed and cast out the unclean spirits of madness {e.g., Mark 1:23–27, 32–34}. The Hebrew Prophets received the God’s revelations as direct communications with God in the state of clear consciousness (e.g., Samuel and Elias) and as the prophetic dreams during normal sleep (e.g., Daniel). God knew Moses “face to face”; Moses was with God, and God spoke to him directly, knew his name, gave him His Law, and has shown him His Glory. Any work of imagination concerning God is rebellion against God: abomination to God of wisdom and knowledge {cf. in: Exodus 24:12–18; 25:1; 33:17–23; 34:4–7, 27–30; Deuteronomy 18:10–14; 34:10; 1 Kings 3:3–15; 16:1–12; 3 Kings 19:9–13; Daniel 7:1}.

With the assertion that Abraham was possessed with madness, Philo downgrades the Judaism – the knowledge and the religion granted by God Himself – to the level of figments of imagination of diviners produced during the altered state of the mind. Philo’s “practical” opinion concerning the prophets (madmen in a trance, with the removed spirit) discloses his disrespect to the original Judaism and whole–hearted acceptance of the methods and concepts of heathen theology.

Many centuries later, the Philo’s assertion of “divine madness” as the source of Judaism received its logical completion in the Sigmund Freud’s “metapsychology” *5*.

4/ Philo follows the Plato’s concept of ideas/forms*6*; Philo asserts that, at first, God created the perfect model perceptible by the intellect only; then, God created the visible corporeal world after the original model – the invisible Earth or “the elder forms and motions previously existing” [On the Creation IV.16–VI.29; XLIV.130]; in this particular case, Philo obviously has the same outlook as Seneca who concludes his discussion of the causes with the statement that the patterns (which Plato named ideas or forms) of all things are within God [Seneca Epistle LXV ].

So, it looks like Philo, Plato, Seneca and the others of a kind watched the process of creation and know what is “within God.”

5/ Philo adopted the Plato’s concept of Ideas–Forms along with the concept of two universes–worlds:


a/ an ideal unchanging invisible model–Form that Philo considers as the Logos

b/ the Logos’ embodiment into the visible and changing reality.


It should be noticed that Plato’s Ideas or Forms are the god–like beings – the kind of lesser gods, which exist eternally “by itself,” and which themselves have life and the power of acting [Timaeus 38, 48; Parmenides 133–135; Sophist 248c–249d]. Therefore, by applying the polytheistic constructions of Plato for interpretation of the monotheistic Judaic theology, Philo repeats the sin of his ancestors {Exodus 32:1–9; Psalm 105(106):19–21}: figuratively speaking, he molds “the golden calf” of his doctrine from the borrowed “gold” of the Egyptian mythical theology and Greek pagan philosophy. In addition, transforming Moses into the adept of Egyptian knowledge, he cast the veil of legitimacy on his fantasies.

Some researchers describe the Philo’s vision of the creation as the endeavor to identify the incorporeal model or the world of ideas with the Logos [e.g., van Winden 225–226] – the Wisdom, the Word–God. Yet, the problem with such an assumption is two–fold:

a/ nobody knows what is the Logos, the Wisdom of God, or the Word–God. All that is given is the commandments, the rules, and the guidance which explain the human nature and the human domain – the world of matter. These commandments, rules, and guidance are the foundation of knowledge at the level of human mind. The human mind is enabled to operate at the level of the creation of God, and not at the level of someone who is able to comprehend the actions and the nature of God; therefore, the human mind lives within (passes through) the world of the matter according to the commandments of God and by faith in God, with incomplete knowledge of God; the human mind is not able to ascend to the Source of the divine energies of creation – to the level at which the matter disintegrates and nothing “human” exists (“human” as the temporal unity of energy, information and matter or as the temporal unity of the matter/flesh with spirit/soul)

b/ with the Aristotle’s logic of simplification, Philo mixes up the incompatible levels of complexity and attempts to create the knowledge about God with the knowledge, which describes the levels of matter – the lowest levels of complexity (the nature, the subject of natural sciences). Ultimately, Philo elevates the discernible matter at the rank of invisible God of his ancestors: he accepts the heathenism as true knowledge of God and, therefore, transforms himself into the idol–worshipper.

6/ Philo suggests the non–traditional interpretation of the words of God “thy fathers” {Genesis 15:15}; according to Philo, “thy fathers” might be the celestial bodies, the archetypal ideas, “four principles and powers” composing the world (the fire, the air, the earth, and the water), etc. Finally, Philo concludes that the soul is a “fragment” of “the fifth essence,” which is superior to all other elements and from which the Universe was created [Who Is the Heir of Divine Things LVI.275–LVII.283]. In another text, Philo asserts that the servants of Abraham and Isaac dug four wells, which “in the figurative manner” disclose that four elements compose the world, namely the water, the earth, the air, and the heaven [On Dreams I, III.14–16]

In Genesis 15:15, in continuation of Genesis 14:18–24; 15:1–14, God promised Abraham that he would go to his fathers in peace and would be buried in an old age as the reward for his righteousness, which differentiates him from other inhabitants of the Earth as well as from his own descendents. Obviously, only the necessity to maintain resemblance of own writings to the Judaic tradition could force Philo to seek corroboration of the imported heathen concepts with the passages – even completely irrelevant – from the Scriptures. There is no possibility to find any other reason for interpretation of four wells as confirmation that the world consists from four elements or to assume that God–Creator Who named Himself the Father of Israel would refer to Own creations – celestial bodies – as the “fathers” of His people. This particular interpretation of the words of God exposes the work of the Philo’s imagination, which strives to incorporate into the Scriptures the mixture of heathen concepts, including for instance, the “world soul” (the human soul in the Philo’s interpretation is a “fragment” of the “world soul” – the intelligence–cosmos–god of the ancient pagan philosophers), Plato’s forms (or “archetypal” ideas), and the idea of cyclical life of the Universe.

However, the soul that carries the image of God–Creator cannot be a fragment of anything within the created by God Universe: by envisioning the soul as “a fragment,” Philo in fact, discards the axiom of Judaism that man had been created in the image and after likeness of God. This particular Philo’s assertion later facilitated incorporation of the Aristotle’s denigrating concept of man as a part–property–slave of the man’s establishment into political theology of Thomas Aquinas, and transferred the process of dehumanization and humiliation of man, which are typical for the heathen establishments, into the societies, which were expected to embody the Christian teachings. The fruits harvested from this transfer include incessant wars and atrocities during entire existence of the European civilization, which had overdone the achievements of Alexander of Macedonia and other heathen conquerors. These fruits, for instance, include

– the methods of interrogation techniques (torture) developed and applied by the Inquisition and then, by secret police of all totalitarian regimes

 – concentrations camps of Nazi Germany and bolshevist atrocities of Gulag in the post–1917 Russia.

7/ Philo refers to mankind as to “the class of rational animals,” and to man as to “every kind of animal, terrestrial, aquatic, flying, and celestial” [Questions and Answers on Genesis I.76; On the Creation LI.147]

Obviously, a flying aquatic–terrestrial–celestial animal is an inventive addition to the Aristotle’s concept of man as a social–political animal, as well as the direct evidence that Philo adopted the same language with which the heathens referred to their idols; for instance, the Orphic “divine or absolute animal” is the serpent invested with the images of other beasts and animals of air, water, and land.

8/ Philo interprets the birth of Seth as the second nativity of Abel [Questions and Answers on Genesis I.78].

This assertion reveals that Philo accepted the doctrine of transmigration of souls that is one of the central concepts of the Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic theological doctrines; however, Orphic–Pythagorean–Platonic myths do not belong to the Holy Scriptures: they are the foundation of the heathen cults.

9/ Philo applied the Aristotle’s technique of description of theological assumptions with the language of physics and geometry and the Pythagorean theory of numbers for interpretation of the book of Genesis and for explanation of the main concepts of Judaism. Such mathematization of theology led Philo to the following statements “in a philosophical spirit”:

– the number seven has “the great sanctity”

– the other philosophers equate seven to Victory (the Greek goddess) and to the “virgin goddess,” which sprung from “the head of Jupiter.” Concerning the “virgin goddess,” Philo obviously refers to Athena, daughter of Zeus, or Jupiter in Roman interpretation, the patroness of Athens [e.g., Graves 1:44]

– number seven, with which the Pythagoreans refer to “the Ruler of all things,” is the foundation not only for geometry and trigonometry, but also for “all incorporeal and corporeal substances”

– number seven, is also a likeness to “the only thing (sic!), which neither moves nor is moved” that is “the Elder Ruler, and Lord of the Universe”

– “the Deity... the most ancient author of all things, namely God” gave the share of an excessive degree of His stability, durability, and firmness to “the most excellent natures” including Moses, whose “perfect absence of motion” God had shown with the words “Stand thou here with Me” {Deuteronomy 5:31}, and so on and so forth [On the Creation III.13–15, XV.48–XVII.53, XXXI.95–XXXII.97; XXXIII.99–100; XXXIX.114–XLIII.128; On Dreams II.XXXIII.223–227; etc.].   

In fact, Philo employs the passage from the Scriptures to prove that God of Israel is the immovable “first mover” of the pagan physicist and subsequently, incorporates into his image of God two constructions borrowed from the heathenism, in particular, from the Aristotelian physical speculations concerning the nature of pagan god, and from the Pythagorean theory of numbers.

Yet, according to the Scriptures, God charged Moses the Prophet to dismiss the people and to remain with Him until He tells Moses the laws and ordinances, which Moses would teach Israelites and from which they must not deviate {Deuteronomy 5:30–33}: Philo misinterprets the meaning of the Scriptures to confirm own assumptions.

Philo’s misinterpretation of the Scriptures and integration of the heathen physical–theological fantasies concerning the nature of the pagan idols into the Judaism have provided the ground for the Philo’s followers: since, after digesting the fantasies of the heathens concerning the nature their gods, they decisively or “boldly” incorporate the heathen concepts into their fantasies, which they misleadingly promulgate as “the Christian dogma.”

In general, the Philo’s language and style convey his certitude in own exceptional possession of the knowledge of the God’s substance; his choice of words indicates that, in his mind, heathen philosophy has completely replaced Judaism: the Almighty God of Abraham and Moses became for Philo the Aristotelian unmovable “first motor” and “thing” whose likeness might be described by the Pythagorean number seven. The traditional for the Judaic mentality reverence to God is lost and the direct ordinances of God are disregarded {for instance, such as do not mention the names of pagan gods –  Exodus 23:13}.

However, the Laws of Moses postulate that the names of other gods must not be mentioned or spoken by the people of Israel, and if somebody appears as a prophet and instead of the words of God speaks own words, or the words in the name of other gods, or own dreams, etc., the Israelites should not even listen: this is the apostate; through him God tests their steadfastness, love, and loyalty, and the apostate has to be executed because he has rebelled against God and he is evil amidst the people {Exodus 23:13; Deuteronomy 13:1–11; 18:20}.

Philo not only was spared from the punishment of apostate; he lived as the recognized authority of Jewish Alexandrian colony, and left his works for the following generations. Now, it is possible only to guess, which path the theologians and philosophers would follow, if the Philo’s works are officially recognized as the heretical and incompatible with the Laws of Moses?

10/ Philo introduced something new to the world hierarchy – “the middle class” between God and man. He asserts that the good man is “neither God nor man, but that he touches the extremities of both” and he is connected with “the immortal race” through his virtue, and with “the mortal race by his manhood” [On Dreams II, XXXIV.230]. To corroborate this “innovation,” which reminds the Plato’s image of the divine consummated philosopher, Philo fabricates own version of the text from the Scriptures about the ritual of atonement, which a high priest had to conduct for the sins of people of Israel. In the Philo’s interpretation, the original text “there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting” when the high priest enters to make atonement {Leviticus 16:17} reveals that the high priest during atonement ceases to be a man. So, Philo places him in “the middle class” between two races – the immortal and the mortal, and concludes that Moses describes this middleman as being neither God nor man but “something on the border” [On Dreams II, XXXIV.231–232].

According to the literal translation and commentaries of Jacob Milgrom, the passage from the Scriptures “No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in... until he comes out” (“No one. wĕkol–ādām, literally ‘every man’”) refers to the “severer precautions” concerning the sacred rite of purification of sins [Leviticus 1010, 1035–1036]. In Philo’s imagination, the Scriptures’ words “no one” in the sense that nobody should present in the Tent of Meeting become “no man” in the sense that the high priest ceases to be a man and ascends to the “middle class” between the mortal men and the immortal deities. This particular interpretation particularly clear illustrates the Philo’s method, which he borrowed from the Egyptian philosophizers and interpreters of myths and symbols: he cuts words from the context and frivolously ascribes them any meaning he needs to support his assertions.

Thus, after downgrading God from the level of the uncognizable Almighty Creator of the Universe to the level of subject of consideration and description with elementary mathematics or Pythagorean numbers, Philo elevates a high priest–good man at the level between God and mankind.

In the heathenism, an unbreakable connection between the vision of gods and self–image exists: the higher place men assign for themselves, the lower place they assign to their idols – imaginable gods. It looks like Philo continues this tradition: only the necessity to keep at least appearance of the traditional Judaic reverence to God keeps Philo from introducing the pagan practice to deify men in a position of authority.

In addition, with the assertion of the “middle class” between God and men, Philo not only creates the basis for deification of a high priest or any other “good man.” He misinterprets the insight of ancient philosophers about the nature and purposes of man to serve as the intermediate between two worlds: the time–space–complexity–bounded Universe, and the eternal reality, which accommodates the Universe [e.g., Plato Timaeus 34–35; Theodore of Asine, Plotinus, Plutarch, and Atticus ref. in: Dodds 298].

In fact, Philo literally follows the main pattern of behavior of the false prophets:


the deceitful visions of his own mind override the words of God

the heathenism takes the place of Judaism

the figments of imagination of idol–worshippers
(the Aristotelian–Pythagorean physical–arithmetical–philosophical speculations)
supplant the knowledge of God revealed through Moses.


With the misinterpretation of the Scriptures and consequent incorporation of the heathen concepts into the knowledge of God, Philo attempts to introduce the pattern of modification and the methods of interactive heathen theology into Judaism. 

However, Greek pagan philosophy is not the only source of the Philo’s importing enterprise: some of his texts confirm obvious presence of the Gnosticism*7*.

In summary, Philo’s acceptance of the Egyptian symbolic interpretation brought the definite results: Philo

– refers to the Scriptures as to the allegory, which has another hidden meaning

– puts own fantasies at the place of the word of God

– presents own phantasms – with which he falsifies the knowledge of God – as the meaning of the Scriptures.

When Philo abandons the mentality of Judaism and accepts the Aristotelian–Pythagorean deity, he follows the common pattern: as a heathen philosopher modifies theology, in the same fashion, Philo – the learned Pharisee – modifies (that is falsifies) the Scriptures. The established by God religion, which accommodates the Universe, becomes for Philo the subject that his mind accommodates, and the playground for his imagination, where he can apply his imagination and which he can populate with own phantasms and the concepts borrowed from heathen theology.



Conclusive Remarks


It might be concluded that Philo has earned the special place in history:

– in resemblance of Plato’s Solon, Philo borrowed the old knowledge of the Egyptians, for whom “everything is symbolic” [Chaeremon Fragment 15D 27], in particular, their methods of allegorical interpretation of the sacred for them myths; he did for Judaism the same thing, which Chaeremon the Stoic did for the Egyptian mythology – both interpreted their religion with the means of Greek heathen philosophy

– Philo misinterpreted and falsified the Books of Moses with the Greek heathen philosophy

– Philo’s “Hellenistic Judaism” is the collection of fantasies and heresies, which has as much common with the Holy Scriptures, Judaism, or Christianity, as much common the malignant tumor–parasite has with a body of host 

– Philo became the first in the line of philosophizing theologians*8* – authors of heresies. Later, acceptance of Philo’s pattern of falsification of the Holy Scriptures resulted in the substitution of heathen philosophy for the Christian teachings, triggered the Great Schism, and culminated in transformation of the Christian Roman Church into the papal church of Rome

– the story of Philo and his family serves as one of the examples of the corruption: the mind, which violates the Law of God and possesses unguarded imagination, undergoes the transformation from the keeper of the Law into the corruptor and apostate {for instance, similarly to the generations of the priests and Pharisees who broke the covenant of Levi, and in the end, sought to murder God, because they could not comprehend and contain His words  –  Jeremiah 5:30–31; 6:13; 23:11–13; Ezekiel 8:6–17; Malachi 2:4–9; Matthew 12:22–45; 15:12–14; 21:42–46; 22:15–21; 23:1–38; Luke 6:6–11; 7:24–35; 11:37–54; 12:1; 15:1–2; 16:13–15; John 7:47–53; 11:47–53}.

Irreversible collapse of any human establishment – any religious, political or another system – begins with the modification of the main truth–knowledge of the actuality on which the establishment/system is built: when heresy*9* takes the place of original truth, the original system ceased to exist.   

For instance, any political, social, and religious establishment – a hierarchical system*10* includes

a/ the core – religious, philosophical and political doctrines, which define the system’s meaning of existence

b/ the system’s values – as the meaning of good and evil that the system embodies

c/ the derivative of the core and the values – the system’s purposes and the means to accomplish the purposes.

As soon as the core is changed, the original purposes lose their significance, and the hierarchical establishment created to achieve these purposes begins to disintegrate. The entire history might be seen as the uninterrupted war of different “truths” with the “heresies” – modifications or contradictions to the “truths,” yet, as of today, all the methods employed by the establishments in attempts to prevent and exterminate heresies were unsuccessful.

Thus, the Philo’s contribution into the history of his people is an attempt to eradicate the knowledge of the Law of God and to reverse the evolution of human mind, with which the human civilization began. Today, there is no possibility to prove that Philo dreamed of resurrection of the ancient gory of the kingdom of Israel and thus, wanted to reconcile Judaism with the heathen theory of empire–building. Even if he does, he chose the wrong path.

There is one common feature that unifies rulers of all kinds and fashions who accepted the heathen philosophy or its derivatives served by their subordinates – philosophers, astrologers, theologians, poets, priest–diviners, etc.: all of them were not able to design any hierarchical system (empire, state), which would be different from the Aristotelian Polis–community–society–state founded upon the Plato–Aristotle’s utopia. All social, political and religious establishments, which were based on the fantasies of men, kept their members/subjects (that is the easily replaceable parts–property–social/political animals–slaves) in ignorance and slavery and employed all available means of education, persuasion, coercion, deceit, rewards, punishments, extermination, and other body–adjusting and brain–washing techniques to prevent free thinking (that is to prevent the human mind from living according to its nature, because the nature of the human mind is freedom of thinking; slavery is the death of reason}.

Yet, at the due time, all the establishments based on coercion*11* failed to retain the power and influence, and came into the oblivion along with their builders and with those who they enslaved or murdered.

So, is anything in the world, which might lead all the minds to the same – universal – comprehension of the same truth, recognized as the absolute? For instance, what makes the minds think differently, if all minds are created in image and after likeness of God, therefore, should be equal in their perception of truth? Will ever all the minds agree in their understanding of God, and will they ever accept the same truth, therefore, the same meaning of freedom, virtue, happiness, and meaning of existence? Then, will ever any establishment or world possible in which the heresy cannot be born?

These questions and the understanding of the meaning and input of the components, which compose the foundation of all establishments of men (these components include hierarchy, power of coercion, heresy, Aristotelian concept of man as the part–property–slave and social–political animal, and artificially maintained ignorance of the subjects in questions of religion, virtues, and morals), lead to the following conclusions {cf. in: Luke 17:20–21; John 8:51; 12:26; 14:6, 23, 26; 15:1–6; 16:7–15; 17:1–26; 1 Peter 4:3–4; 2 Peter 3:5–13; 1 John 2:15–17; Galatians 4:1–9}:

1/ heresy is able to exist only within the temporary hierarchical establishments arranged by the degrees of evil – disparagement of man, perversion of truth, and perversion of the nature; such establishments compose the world, which rejects God and creates and consumes the knowledge of evil, corruption, and death – the knowledge of the temporary dissipating world living in slavery, evil and lawlessness, therefore, destined to death and destruction

2/ knowledge of the Absolute Truth annihilates any possibility to enslave the mind, therefore, prevents any possibility of heresy

3/ the mind, which lives by God and carries the kingdom of God within, is not susceptible to heresy

4/ the actual meaning of the mankind’s evolution is the ascension of the human mind to the Absolute Truth – that is to God.

For us, the Christians, the beginning and the end of this path is our Lord, Jesus Christ the Pantokrator and Savior, Who grants us the truth and the life everlasting, and Who creates us into the temple and dwelling of the Almighty Holy Trinity.

Consequently, it might not be any sense to remember the dead man who created heretical “Hellenistic Judaism,” which was rejected even by some of his own contemporaries twenty centuries ago, if do not consider the Philo’s case as

a/ a precedent that


introduced Egyptian philosophizing into the practices of monotheist theologians

advanced a particular mode of thinking and creating theological assumptions
 – interactive theology of the heathens –
in the theological schools of Egypt (Alexandrian school, which nurtured Origen) and then, Europe


b/ the step to understanding how


symbolism and allegorical mode of thinking influences the mind
and makes it susceptible to heresy

how heresy devours the human reason.


The centuries of hidden idol–worship and hypocrisy resulted in misinterpretation of the Law, and development of special abilities of perversion and corruption {Matthew 23:1–35}, which plagued the priests, scribes, and elders; for instance, the Pharisees that began as the keepers of the Law, became unable to recognize the Messiah, and finished by seeking to assassinate God – the Source of the Law {John 11:46–53, 57}. In general, the works of Philo of Alexandria are the logical completion of the centuries of hidden idol–worship, which some of the chosen people preferred to the Law revealed through Moses {e.g., Ezekiel 8:5–17}.

If to seek the words, which would provide the comprehensive evaluation of Philo’s “Hellenic Judaism” as a result of acceptance of the Orphic doctrine and the symbolic interpretations practiced by the Egyptian priests–diviners, such words can be found in the Holy Scriptures; they have been said

– by Moses (who Philo portrayed as the cosmopolitan filled with the Egyptian wisdom), when he speaks of the idol–worshippers who have no understanding, whose vine (that is their root) is the vine of Sodom producing the wine that carries the rage of serpents and incurable rage of asps {θυμος δρακοντων ο οινος αυτων, και θυμος ασπιδων ανιατος – Deuteronomy 32:9–33} – in the beginning, as the warning of disaster (idol–worship), which could be avoided

– by Lord God Jesus Christ when He refers to the Pharisees as to the “Serpents! Offspring of vipers!” and “the blind leaders of the blind” who lead their people into the pit and murder the messengers of God {Matthew 15:12–14; 23:13–35} – in the end, when the disaster foretold by Moses became the actuality.

There is no mutual agreement concerning the true meaning and value of Philo’s contribution into the official history of religion. Some early writers (e.g., Eusebius, Jerome, Origen, Augustine of Hippo who are traditionally referred to as “Christian theologians”)

a/ identified the Philo’s speculations as the “early Christian doctrine”

b/ falsely asserted the Philo’s influence on the Apostles

c/ acknowledged Philo as “an honorary Church Father” almost equal to the Prophets, and incorporated his fantasies into own works.

Obviously, such high praises of the Egyptian–Hellenistic philosophizing Pharisee can be uttered only if to discard the warning of Lord Jesus Christ to beware of teachings of the Pharisees who are “hypocrites… an evil and adulterous generation” {Matthew 16:1–12}.

As Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (the ninth century), inferred: starting with Philo, the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures “began to pour into the Church” [Photius ref. and qtd. in: Runia 13].

Consequently, it might be concluded that

– the works of Philo of Alexandria accomplished transfer of the methods of the heathen philosophizers to the early Christian theologians

– the early Christian theologians, who accepted the Philo’s legacy, became the next generation of the consumers of “the incurable rage of asps” – the Orphic serpentine theology, and disseminators of the heathenism.

Each human thought might be seen as the seed, as the code of a system, which could define the Future. From such a point of view, the Philo’s influence might be traced from the beginning in the A.D. first century until the twentieth century, when it reached its logical completion and the pick of the influence onto human societies through the works of Sigmund Freud*5*, *12*, *13*.

The Freud’s phenomenon illustrates the conclusion of the process, which Philo of Alexandria began with alteration of Judaism. The writings of both have the most negative consequences for the contemporary civilization, and it is not the mere coincidence that they both attack the legacy and personality of Moses – one of the greatest Prophets through whom the Law of God was revealed to mankind and under whose practical guidance the human civilization began:

1/ the philosophizing Pharisee, Philo of Alexandria referred to the Books of Moses as to the collection of myths, adopted symbolism from the Egyptian priests, invented philosophical interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and described Moses as a cosmopolitan and adept of Egyptian philosophy. Eventually, Philo established a precedent of application of human imagination to the revelations of God, and finished with “Hellenistic Judaism” that corrupted the original Judaism built by the Word of God

2/ the convinced atheist with medical training, Sigmund Freud slandered the human nature by ascribing own Oedipus” complex and “psychosexuality” to mankind and attempted to introduce new definition of the human nature by substituting his own creation – the impotent criminal and pervert obsessed with lust for parricide and incest – for the being created into the image and after likeness of perfect God.

If Philo established a precedent of application of human imagination to the revelations of God and referred to the Books of Moses as to the collection of myths, Freud expanded Philo’s love to the Egyptian symbolism until such a degree that transformed Moses into an Egyptian, Judaism (along with its foundation – The Ten Commandments) into Egyptian religion, and Levites (priests and chief–priests) into Egyptian servants of Egyptian Moses. Instead of Judaism, Freud offered a new religion – his psychoanalysis and the myth of glacier family with the father whose hostile actions toward his sons (including castration) resulted in homosexuality and the “Oedipus” complex. Eventually, he conspired to propagate his pseudoscientific psychoanalysis/“metapsychology” and elevate it at the rank of the worldwide religion through

a/ the group of “The Seven Rings”*12*, which included Freud’s “disciples” who idolized Freud, and whose “homage” had to be “implicit and wordless” [Sachs 8–9, 15–16, 129, 153]

b/ cunning plays with the members of “intellectual elite,” for instance, such as Romain Rolland [Parsons 79–99; Kripal 214].

They both – Philo of Alexandria and Sigmund Freud – denigrated the core values of mankind and undermined the faith of many, although in different aspects:

– with his imagination corrupted by the heathen philosophy/Orphic serpentine theology, Philo attempted to contaminate the theological truths, which define the nature of man and sustain the existence of mankind

– Freud continued with elevating figments of his imagination and his own health problems, such as his “Oedipus” complex, to the rank of the common norm and attempted to disprove the divine nature and good of man created in image and after likeness of God. 

Philo used the words of God as the myths, which can be modified by human imagination and can be interpreted according to the needs of man. With application of his imagination to the words of God, Philo began the process of disintegration of religion (that is disintegration of human conscience), which inevitably leads to transformation of man into the beast.

Freud completed the work of Philo with his “ancestral myth,” parricide and incest as the beginning of human civilization, and pseudoscience intended to take the place of worldwide religion for the psychosexual beasts masqueraded in human bodies. 

Freud attempted to elevate the mire of his imagination at the place of a new religion: Freud attempted to substitute the cult, which propagates the perversion and insanity as the norm, for the traditional religion based on the concept of the good. If Philo sow the seed (from which a possibility of acceptance of Freudian pseudoscience sprang) by making religion accessible for human imagination, therefore, transforming it into the realm of human dreams, Freud completed the process:

1/ by referring to the traditional religion as to mental disorder (“obsessional neurosis”)

2/ by asserting own perversion as the meta–science

3/ by attempting elevate his pseudoscience to the rank of worldwide religion, which – if to analyze the Freud’s own definitions and wordings – mirrors the definitions of idolatry and perversions given by St. Paul the Apostle {Romans 1:21–32; Colossians 3:5–8}.

 The Philo of Alexandria’s “Hellenistic Judaism” and Sigmund Freud’s “metapsychology” illustrate the meaning of Moses’ definition of the heathenism as “incurable rage of asps” {Deuteronomy 32:33} – the deadly potency of false knowledge. That what began as a false assertion, which attempted to taint Moses with the “wisdom” of heathens, and which was intended to facilitate acceptance of the forbidden false knowledge of the heathens, was completed with the false doctrine that ascribes to mankind perversion and insanity as the common traits of human nature, portrays the human soul – Freud’s “unconscious” which he also considered as the collective property of mankind*13*  – as “a demoniacal monster” [Jung 180–181], and introduces heathenism as the foundation of the contemporary cultural, religious, and social life*16*.

The drops of poison, which the learned Pharisee Philo mixed into his imaginary “Hellenistic Judaism,” became the flood of poison that polluted the domain of human knowledge with hatred to God, hatred to father, unnatural lust for incest (in which Freud sees “the beginning of religion, ethics, society, and art”*14*), and inventory of perversions*15*, from which Freud amassed his “metapsychology” intended to become a new religion of the Western civilization*17*.







*1* The heathens did not have problem with adoption of new deities. The ancient Greek polis–state accepted new idols without hesitation; for instance, the Plato’s Republic begins with the reference to the first festival devoted to introduction of the cult of Thracian goddess.

The new cults not only enriched religious and social life with additional festivities; they secured political purposes, such as assimilation of different cities or associations of members of different groups.

At the same time, Socrates was executed as the destroyer of Athens and corruptor of the youths, because Socrates did not recognize the traditional gods; he introduced new “deities.”

Seemingly, Socrates defied the state’s religious superiority: acceptance of new deities and institution of the rites of worship was the prerogative of the state. The state’s purposes included unification of the manner of thinking through the common religious beliefs, therefore, preparation for expansion of the Greek world. The ordinary citizens were expected to obey and to cheerfully adopt any new deity introduced by the authorities. Therefore, by introducing own deities, Socrates – as a non–conformist – intervenes with the state political interests; consequently, he becomes the heretic and apostate eligible for expulsion or extermination.

Later, the Roman Empire adopted and elaborated the traditions of the Greek statecraft – the empire tolerated all kinds of cults and religions on the conquered territories, if the population of these territories recognized the “divine emperor” as the main deity and included the official rites of emperor’s cult into their worshiping practices.


*2* Philo of Alexandria, 15(?) B.C. – A.D. 45(?); references in: Runia 125, 207; Sextus Empiricus in: Xenophanes of Colophon 231; “Preface” to The Works of Philo xix–xx; on the Internet – Catholic Encyclopedia; Jewish Encyclopedia; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


*3* Concerning Symbolism, see Page_1 of this Folder – Philosophy: the Beginning.

The systems concept of knowledge allows elaboration of the meaning of symbolism. The mind is able to comprehend knowledge at three levels of complexity:

1/ the unity of energy, universal code/pattern of creation, and the creative force – the universal power; this is the level of the highest complexity, which the mind might comprehend as the source of all knowledge that sustains the Universe

2/ the level of interactions among the energy fields–settings defining the existence of the matter; these levels of lesser complexity are accessible by the mind within the routine actions reflecting the meaning of mind’s existence within the world of man

3/ the levels of matter; at these levels of the lowest complexity, the knowledge manifests itself through embodiment into the material structures, which compose the visible (or physical) world of human beings.

Consequently, any attempt to comprehend or explain the nature, inner laws, and manifestations of the higher level of complexity with the meanings innate for the lowest levels of complexity cannot be successful: the threshold between each level of complexity is a consequence of the laws on which the Universe is built. All disasters of mankind have their root in the phenomenon, which might be defined as simplification or as an attempt to describe the different levels of complexity with the language and meaning of the lowest level of complexity.

Symbolism presents one of the facets of the phenomenon of simplification, because the foundation of symbolism is a belief that there is a similarity among phenomena with the different levels of complexity; this belief results, for instance, in such assumptions as

– the nature of God–Spirit might be described with analogies and symbols created as a result of observation of the material structures

– the play at the arena for amusement of the spectators might adequately describe the actual life

– the imaginary dream world conveys the actuality of existence

– the human nature might be improved through creation of chimeras (e.g., such as hybrid of rodent–human, avian–human, vegetable–human embryos), experiments on chimeras, and application of the results of experiments with chimeras, animals, and non–humans to the human being.

In general, symbolism might be defined as an application of knowledge of the material structures to the laws, which control the energy–source of the matter; such application results in false and irrelevant assumptions, which have no capacity to reflect the actuality. The Aristotle’s dialectics became the best description of the logic of simplification on which the contemporary civilization was founded and with which it is ruining itself.


*4* “True philosophizing” is the technique through which the mind identifies itself with some particular symbols–sets of assumptions expressed with images of the surrounding material world. Then, the mind assumes own ability to cognize or describe the nature of God with the symbols created from images of the material world: it substitutes a phantasm created with own imagination for the true knowledge of God. However, such a substitution means that the mind has perverted own nature and became inadequate to own natural/original core–essence–main pattern that is to the image of God.

The “true philosophizing” still sustains creation of idols and idol–worship in the contemporary meaning (ideologies, propaganda, and countless “isms” serving enslaving of man). In general, this practice is employed by those who need

1/ to create idols after own actual or assumed self–image linked with the surrounding material objects

2/ to ascribe supernatural and spiritual power to own creation–idol although it is a figment of imagination composed after likeness of the world of matter

3/ to assert the figments of own imagination and illusions as the spiritual gifts, revelations, and “wisdom” of the imaginary deities

4/ to classify figments of own imagination (the imaginary “gifts” and “wisdom”) as prophecy, new true religion, or true philosophy

5/ to forcefully impose false religion, heathen philosophy, or false knowledge on the others.


*5* In the work published before his death, Freud declares that Moses was an Egyptian. With the reference to a “discovery” allegedly made in the books of Hebrew Prophets, Freud asserts that “the Egyptian Moses was killed by the Jews and the religion, which he instituted, was abandoned.” According to Freud, Moses’ “father–religion” did not accommodate “a direct expression of the murderous hatred of the father.” Yet, the Levites (who, according to Freud, were the Moses’ escort and servants he took with him from Egypt) survived [Freud Moses and Monotheism 72–74, 80].

In his last letter to Hanns Sachs (March 1939) Freud refers to publication of his book  Moses and Monotheism as to “Quite a worthy exit” [Freud qtd. in: Sachs 183–184].

Although Freud’s brain–child – psychoanalysis has found recognition in some professional and cultural circles of the society, his book Moses and Monotheism was met with quite definite reactions.

For instance, the opinions communicated in works of only one researcher – Peter Gay – can be arranged at the scale from a softest definition such as “disturber of peace” [Gay xxii] to terrifying by their hateful contents reference of an Anonymous Bostonian who criticizes the Freud “statement that Moses was not a Jew” and expresses his disappointment that a “renegade like” Freud could not die “without disgracing” himself and that “the Gangsters in Germany” did not put him “into a concentration camp” [Anonymous Bostonian cited in Gay’s work, qtd. in: Delaney 181].

According to Professor Carol Delaney who perceives Freud’s  Moses and Monotheism as the “key to his entire corpus,” Freud “projected” his myth of origin “from Totem and Taboo onto a biblical canvas”; he dismissed and distorted “Jewish tradition” and “elaborated” the idea of Ernst Sellin “to fit the Oedipal schema” [Delaney 180, 187, 190, 193].

The special point of interest in this story is the motive: why Freud allowed himself to falsify the Bible’s text so openly, although he definitely could foretell the reaction of his readers: he began to write Moses and Monotheism in the beginning of 1930s, yet, kept it in secret until he reached safe–haven in London in 1938 (the book was published in England, in German language, before his death – he died in 1939, according his wishes – “asking his physician for a lethal dose of morphine”, not as his three sisters who were executed in Nazi concentration camps [Delaney 181; Gay xxii]).

Freud himself discloses one of the reasons: he refers to Judaism as to “father–religion,” in which there is no place for “a direct expression of the murderous hatred of the father” [Freud Moses and Monotheism 80].

It looks like Freud would attempt to overthrow any religion, which does not accommodate his maniacal hatred to his father.

Furthermore, Professor Janet Liebman Jacobs – “a Jewish feminist scholar” as she refers to herself – diagnosed Freud’s “internalized anti–Semitism” and “explicit contempt for his Eastern Jewish roots.”  In particular, Professor Jacobs argues that

– the Freud’s phenomenon cannot be understood without his “Jewishness” and anti–Semitism. She points out that in his youth, Freud “reacted with disdain” and expressed “disregard” for the “Eastern European Jewry” (including his parents and grandparents) and “contempt for his Eastern Jewish roots”: she ascribes to him “internalized anti–Semitism.” She also provides an insight into Freud’s own “unconscious.” According to Professor Jacobs, Freud not only connects castration with ritual circumcision, which God established for the Jews as the sign of the covenant, and which in the beginning was performed by a father {Genesis 17:10–14, 23]; Freud  perceives the shame of own mutilation in “the “horrific” image of the inferior female body.” At the same time, Freud defines the castration complex as “the deepest root of anti–Semitism” [Freud qtd. in: Jacobs 174; Jacobs 170–176], ascribing own feelings to the entire society

 – Freud’s “ethnic self–contempt” triggered Freud’s “Oedipal drama of castration.” She also cites Freud’s description of his traveling companions – father and son who were discussing religion: Freud refers to them as to “typical” and remarks “I have enough of this rabble”; he describes the boy as “cunning, mendacious,” yet, “kept by his adoring relatives in the belief that he is a great talent” [Jacobs 172–173]. 

However, Freud’s description of the boy becomes to resemble the self–portrayal, if to take into consideration Freud’s unsubstantiated psychoanalytic “discoveries,” international conspiracy to promote his assumptions, including his “abnormal occupation with “the psychological universality” of sexuality or in Freud’s definition – “psychosexuality”  [although he knew that they are not complete as the scientific doctrine should be – e.g., Freud Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety 52, 81; Jung 45, 53–58, 138–139, 180; Freud ref. and qtd. in: Wallwork 243–244], his attempts to elevate the misconception called “psychoanalysis” into the rank of meta–science, contempt to the others along with the “magnificent pride” and belief in own superiority, and all other controversies surrounding Freud’s life and works [e.g., Delaney; Gay; Jacobs; Sachs].

Two inferences from the referred above texts:  

1/ Freud developed contempt and hatred to his father [Sachs 143–146], as well to his own nation [Jacobs 172–173]; therefore, he could not reconcile himself with the special destiny of the Jews as the nation chosen by God to receive the Law and to become the holy nation – the nation of priests, which has to become the model of evolution for entire mankind

2/ with his “magnificent pride” [Sachs 148], Freud was not able to satisfy hatred with his Oedipus complex and desire to murder a father only: the entire Jewish nation and then, entire mankind have to be held responsible for Freud’s imagined and actual humiliations.

As soon as Freud had no possibilities to inflict harm physically, he – consciously or unconsciously (he knows) – contemplated psychological destruction of Judaism, legalization of crimes against nature (incest and parricide) as the common feature of entire mankind, and consequent re–shaping of the human nature according to his psychoanalysis, which he later attempted to promote into a rank of a new religion under the name of “metapsychology.”

Dr. Jung, to whom Freud referred as to “his own son” and “crown–prince,” eventually inferred that Freud represents the unconscious “in a thoroughly negative light,” as “a demoniacal monster” and attempted to disprove the basic assumptions of Freud’s “metapsychology” [Jung 45, 53–57, 138–139, 180; 180–181].

 Historically, perversion always led to extermination of sinners and perverts (e.g., the Flood, Sodom and Gomorra), hence, it should not be forgotten that the perversion, which Freud aspired to make the property of entire human race, already has become the Freud’s psychic reality – in his mind, Freud committed the most hideous crimes forbidden by the Law of God given through Moses:

a/ he developed hatred to God

b/ he dishonored his parents

c/ he wanted to kill own father

d/ he wanted to “open nakedness” of his father and “to lie with” his father’s wife – his own mother [Freud analyzed his conflict with his father along with the “guilt over sexual feelings that, as a boy, he’d experienced toward his own mother”  – Note to Freud’s Totem and Taboo in Dover edition, p. v.]

Freud’s “magnificent pride” would not allow recognition of the authority of the Law of God, therefore, acceptance of own death–sentence according to the Law {Deuteronomy 30:15–20}, so, entire mankind should accompany him by developing the same kind of perversion.

In the actual world, the Freud’s speculations triggered the terrible consequences. Freud’s definition of human mentality as the inventory of perversions, identification of man with his reproductive organ and excrements as the source of pleasure [Freud Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety, esp. 58–59, 69, 80; The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis 264–266; Freud qtd. and ref. in: Strachey xxxvi], as well as his conspiracy to promote the fruits of his imagination all over the world [Freud’s “strictly anonymous” group of “the Seven Rings” organized in 1920, in Hague, for international propagation of psychoanalysis  – Sachs 153–173], became known long before Adolf Hitler’s “final solution.” These assertions invoked the definite response of the Nazi authorities in Germany: Freud’s books were publicly burned in Berlin, and his name was one of the first in the proscription list of the Austrians. In Nazi Germany, the main fact, which has the prevalent significance, was that Freud is a Jew: his “Oedipus” complex, inclinations, and deeds were identified as typical for the entire Jewry. Consequently, it could not be any expectation of any compassion or mercy to the Jews, if, in the definitely anti–Semitic environment centered on the cult of the state and personality of the Fuhrer, a Jewish scientist and internationally promoted authority in “metapsychology”

a/ propagates that the most of the all what is “the highest in man,” even the civilization itself, becomes possible only because of the Oedipus complex and actual murder of the “primal father” in “the glacial epoch” [Freud Totem and Taboo 133–134; The Ego and the Id 706–707; Note to Freud’s Totem and Taboo in Dover edition, p. v]

b/ ascribes to man an entire inventory of perversion starting with two main features of Freud’s “Oedipus” complex – parricide and incest [e.g., Freud Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety 80; The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis 260–267; Beyond the Pleasure Principle 657; The Ego and the Id 705–707; Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego 679; Freud qtd. and ref. in: Strachey xxxvi]

c/ asserts that all religious doctrines (therefore, including the Nazi cult of state and of the Fuhrer) are “in their psychological nature, illusions”; that religion “forcibly” fixes people in “a state of psychical infantilism,” and that religion is “universal obsessional neurosis” [Freud The Future of an Illusion 56–57; Civilization and Its Discontents 71; Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices 17–24].

d/ declares that the neuroses illustrates the history of the mental development of mankind; regressions to anxiety hysteria, conversion hysteria, and obsessional neuroses are regressions to the phases of human history through which “the whole human race” went through during the Ice Age: “What are now neuroses were once phases in human condition” [Freud A Phylogenetic Fantasy: Overview of Transference Neuroses 11, 13; Letter to Ferenczi of July 12, 1915, qtd. in: Grubrich–Simitis 79]? 

Besides, it looks like not only the Nazis identified Freud’s “metapsychology” with Jewish national features. In particular, Donald Capps mentions that Freud was acquainted with Chassidic mysticism and suggests that psychoanalysis is “deeply imbedded in the Jewish mystical tradition.” David Bakan refers to psychoanalysis as to a “secularized” form of Jewish mysticism and asserts that Freud had no intention to establish new religion, yet, he used existing religion for his “scientific project.” He also attempts to find similarity between Freud and Chassidic healers and ascribes origin of psychoanalytic techniques to the methods of interpretation employed in Jewish mystical literature [Capps 9, 85, 87; Bakan 92–93].

It should be inferred that in his struggle for the world–wide recognition of his “matapsychology,” Freud identified the Law of God as the main obstacle.

The irreversible perversion of the human nature could be successful only after vilification of the Law, which stipulates the normal human nature. If the Law, which defines the nature of man and stipulates his status as one of the chosen people, becomes a myth, nothing prevents the criminal and pervert from becoming a new model for humankind. The dethronement of Moses (therefore, subsequent dethronement of God–Lawgiver and His Law) would serve the means of Freud’s self–defense, justification, and advancement.

For instance, recognition that the foundation of Judaism is a myth would facilitate recognition of his Oedipus complex as the common norm – who, indeed, would give the Law to insane perverts and criminals with the lust for parricide and incest?

To denigrate the Law, Freud presents Moses as an Egyptian who eventually was killed by the Jews, the Moses’ religion – as the religion of Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV (worship to the sun), Moses’ servants–Egyptians – as the priests loyal to their murdered master – Moses. By denigration of Moses at the level of the carrier of Egyptian heathen knowledge and asserting Egyptian heathen religion as the source of Judaism, Freud attempts to undermine the importance of the act of giving the Law to the chosen nation. From the beginning, Egypt was associated with slavery and death of the first–born sons; only by the hand of God the Exodus was accomplished and it might be interesting to recall that before the departure, the Jews “despoiled” their Egyptian masters by “borrowing” their gold and other things {Exodus 12:35–36}. The association of Egypt with slavery, death, and dishonesty cannot be erased from the ancestral memory, conscience, and self–consciousness of any Jew. Then, if the Law of Moses is the law of the Egyptians, Judaism with its concept of the chosen nation and the guardians of the Law of God becomes nothing but a myth created by those who could not free themselves from the unbearable memories of the actual Past, thus had no choice but to create the legend, which would supplant the actuality, justify the shame of the fathers, and provide the sons with expectations of the exalted Future.

In summary, Freud attempted to vilify Judaism because of four reasons:

1/ the foundation of Judaism, the first of two main and the greatest commandments, is love to God the Father

2/ Judaism if the father–religion, which demands to love and to honor father and mother

3/ if the Law given through Moses is applied for evaluation of Freud’s speculations, the Law would throw Freud’s “metapsychology” at the level of heathen insanity and identify him as an apostate who should be cast out of the chosen nation

4/ Freud’s very own “internalized anti–Semitism” and contempt to the Eastern Jews who did not accept assimilation and remain loyal to their tradition and customs.

It might be concluded that the overall life–long progress of Freud’s thought is consistent with the typical pattern of annihilation: he proceeds from denigration of a creation to denigration of the only foundation on which the creation is able to exist. Freud began his career with disparagement and denigration of the nature of man – he bestowed own “Oedipus” complex onto mankind and attributed the beginning of civilization to parricide and incest. Freud finished his life with an attempt to vilify the religion, with which evolution of the human mind and civilization of reason began.

Three things should be taken in consideration for the final evaluation of the significance of Freud’s works completed with “Moses–the–Egyptian” assertion.

1. Freud “was forced to admit” that his concept of libido is not sufficient for an explanation of all mental diseases; psychoanalysis is only one of all possible methods, which also might not satisfy the expectations [Jung 45, 54–57]. Similarly, in his work published in 1926, Freud admits that after all the years of his “psychoanalytic labours” he cannot solve the riddle “whence does neurosis come,” and what is its reason: he still is “in the dark” as he was at the beginning of his studies. In his own words, his difficulty to understand “the most fundamental facts” is “almost humiliating” [Freud Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety 52, 81].

The Freud’s own recognition of impotency of his reasoning and infertility of 30 years of his “psychoanalytic labours” (the first time when psychoanalysis was mentioned was the spring of 1896 [Gay xiii]) discloses the actual worth of his psychoanalysis along with his “metapsychology” as well as his professional incompetence. No one medical professional who has conscience and the sense of responsibility would dare to heal the disease he knows nothing about: “Do not cause any harm to your patient” is the main law for the medical professionals since Hippocrates (fifth century B.C.).

2. Although Freud has admitted his own state of being “in the dark” and insufficiency of his concept of the libido, he nevertheless, defines his psychoanalysis as “metapsychological presentation.” He propagates the “mythological view of the world,” or psychology imposed on “the external world” as the basis of modern religion that transforms “metaphysics into metapsychology”; as such, “metapsychology” formulates statements with the “highest degree of generalization” [Freud ref. and qtd. in: Grubrich–Simitis 85, 104]. Freud asserts that his psychoanalysis can produce “a complete and finished body of doctrine, like a philosophical system” and along with abnormalities can analyze the higher nature or “the ego–ideal.” Consequently, this higher nature is defined as “the heir of Oedipus complex” and identified with father [Freud The Ego and the Id 707].

3. It should be noticed that Freud misinterpreted the ancient Greek myth of Oedipus [e.g., in: Graves 1:196, 2:9–12]. Oedipus mother Iocaste (the priestess of Hera and then, of Sphinx – monster sent by Hera to punish the city, which the Iocaste’s husband ruled) was a daughter of the Sown Man. The Sown Men or the Sparti sprang out of the earth when Cadmus sowed the teeth of the serpent; five survived Sown Men became the servants of Cadmus. The Sparti were non–humans; as it could be traced from different myths, they and their offspring committed crimes against the human nature and ultimately were exterminated. The very presence of the Sown Man (the Iocaste’s father) had brought the plague on the city; the plague ceased after the Sown Man committed suicide, yet, his grandson Oedipus was doomed to kill his father and to marry his mother. When the Oedipus father learned the prediction about the destiny of his son, he left newborn Oedipus to die at the mountain. A shepherd found the child and brought him to his king who was childless. When the Delphi oracle told Oedipus that he was destined to parricide and incest, Oedipus fled the city where he was brought up: he did not want any harm to his parents, but, Oedipus did not know that he is an adopted child. During his journey, Oedipus met the traveler who insulted and threatened him; Oedipus had to kill the man to protect himself: Oedipus did not know that this man was his father. After Oedipus solved the riddle of Sphinx and freed the people from a monster (when her riddle was solved, Sphinx killed herself as it was determined by the Fate), the grateful Thebeans proclaimed Oedipus the king – their previous king (Oedipus’ father) was murdered by an unknown stranger. According to the local custom, Oedipus has to marry the king’s widow Iocaste, who was a queen of Thebes (and Oedipus’ mother). Again, Oedipus did not know that he was born in Thebes as well as he did not know that Iocaste is his mother; then, the myth is silent concerning Oedipus’ sexual attraction to the older woman. According to all known versions of the myth, Oedipus committed parricide and incest unintentionally and against his own will: even a descendant of a non–human being did not wish to commit crimes against own parents, against his own – as he believed – nature.

For the ancient Greeks, the myth of Oedipus had the very deep meaning; at first, it asseverated fruitlessness of attempts of the mortals to avoid their destiny; at second, it taught that only non–humans commit crimes against the human nature. The myth of Oedipus became the part of the sacred doctrine of the ancient clan of priests–assassins who executed those whom they found guilty of a crime against gods and against the human nature and, thus, judged to be non–humans – descendents of the Sown Men or other monsters [The Sunset Knowledge]. Consequently, the term “Oedipus complex” could be applied for a definition of the unintentional crimes against humanity committed by the non–humans, not for a definition of lust for parricide and incest as the foundation of human mentality.

The misuse of the name of Oedipus with an intention to disguise the Freud’s own perversion could become possible either because of illiteracy in the Greek mythology or intentional misinterpretation of the myth intended to embellish and justify perversion by ascribing it to the honored Antiquity. Whatever the actual reason is, the usage of a name of Oedipus – descendent of non–human being – does not elevate Freud’s own perversion at the rank of the ancient legacy; it discloses the abnormality of the mind, which identifies incest and parricide as the part of own nature and ascribes the same abomination to entire mankind.

4. Freud’s speculations are based on a handful of cases (including self–observation), and the “evidence,” which he collected from the “analyzands” and described in his works, does not corroborate his assertions. For instance, the entire body of Freud’s psychoanalysis/ “metapsychology” is built on the following cases [in: Gay xii–xiii, xv, xix, xx, xxi; Sachs 187]:

1) “Anna O.” – woman who suffered from the mental disorder, which Freud identified with hysteria, became “the founding patient of psychoanalysis” (1895)

2) Freud’s own dream named “Irma’s injection” became a “model” of psychoanalysis (1895)

3) death of Freud’s father (1896) triggered self–analysis during which Freud discovered his perversion and named it “Oedipus complex”

4) in ten years (1905–1914), technique of psychoanalysis was developed with three cases, including animal phobia, which Freud “discovered” in five–year boy

5) some authors suggest the connection between death of his daughter (1920) and the theory of death drive, which reflects the struggle between Eros and Thanatos

6) that what Freud names “evidence” gathered through his practice does not corroborate his “map” of the human mind

7) Freud analyzed his daughter Anna (Freud also invented the “Electra complex” – the female version of his own “Oedipus” complex) who joined the Vienna Psychoanalytic society (1922) and later devoted herself to psychoanalysis of children.

It looks like all Freud’s assertions, which he attempts to elevate into the rank of the meta–science, are based on a handful of cases of the mental disorders, not on the representative studies.

Therefore, no rational foundation can be allotted to the Freud’s “metapsychology”: it cannot be recognized as a science created by unbiased and trustworthy researcher.

Hence, it might be concluded that creations of two minds – the one that ascribed to Moses use of the Egyptian “wisdom” (Philo) and another that propagated “Moses–the–Egyptian” concept (Freud) – illustrate the consequences of the false assumptions born by imagination affected with the heathen myths and philosophical concepts directed toward theological knowledge. The pollution of Judaism with the Egyptian symbolism and the Greek heathen philosophy, which Philo of Alexandria began with his “Hellenistic Judaism,” matured into the false inconsistent and irrational doctrine, which denigrates human nature and ascribes to entire mankind insanity and perversion.


*6* Concerning Plato, see Page_2 of this folder: Philosophy: Plato.


*7* Gnosticism is a mixture of Greek heathen philosophy, astrology, Egyptian mythology, Babylonian and Persian dualism, etc., produced by “elaboration of imagination” and with the “Greek mentality” [Baybrook 182–183].


*8* The line of most known and influential philosophizing theologians – authors of heretical doctrines–misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures includes Philo of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and their apprentices and followers.


*9* Concerning Heresy, see – Archive, Page_2_2008; posting for July 6, 2008.


*10* Concerning Hierarchy, see Archive, Page_6_2008–2009, posting for July 20, 2008}


*11* Concerning The Power of Coercion, see Archive, Page_6_2008–2009, posting for July 13, 2008}


*12* According to Hanns Sachs, those devoted disciples who composed “The Seven Rings” group, Freud presented with a symbolical gift: rings with engraved semiprecious stones from his Greco–Roman collection. The rings were similar to his favorite ring with a carved head of Jupiter, which Freud constantly wore; they were intended to remind to disciples that they have the same “center of gravity” [Sachs 153].

The gift of the rings to the members of the “Seven Rings” group discloses not only the inclination to symbolism, which is a necessary framework for religions, cults, and sects. Probably, in his dreams, Freud identified himself with Jupiter. Jupiter was the Roman main deity analogous to the Greek main deity – Zeus.

According to the ancient Greek myths, Zeus violated his mother Rhea and dethroned his father Chronos. The Zeus’ father Chronos castrated his father Uranus and swallowed his own new–born children to protect himself from the destiny of his father Uranus [Xenophanes of Colophon Fragment 12 83; Graves 1:37–39, 53, 76–79]. In some versions of the myth, Chronos and Uranus share the same fate. Therefore, self–identification with Jupiter could provide Freud with some degree of psychological comfort: at least, he was not alone in his deviancy. It might be also probable that the term “Oedipus complex” is a substitute for the actual meaning, which parricide and incest had in Freud’s “psychic reality”: if he identifies man with his reproductive organ, deprivation of the father of the authority (e.g., through incest) and castration could be the more appropriate name for murder, and the fate of Chronos/Uranus would be more appropriate for Freud’s father as the revenge for the ritual of circumcision performed on Freud’s body. Freud could convince himself that he has something in common with Zeus–Jupiter and as a new deity, has the right to bestow on humankind a new religion –  psychoanalysis/”metapsychology.”

Indeed, it looks like any perversion either emanates from the heathenism or uses the heathenism as the disguise.


*13* According to Freud, the unconscious is “a collective, universal property of mankind” [Moses and Monotheism 79]; it is “made up of repressed infantile material” [Freud ref. in: Brill x], that is from mental and physical perversions and lust for parricide and incest, which he ascribes to children [e.g., in: Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety 80; The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis 264–266; Freud qtd. and ref. in: Strachey xxxvi; Beyond the Pleasure Principle 657; The Ego and the Id 705–707; Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego 679].

Although the portrayal of the unconscious as the collective universal property of mankind is not consistent with Freud’s manifest atheism, this new angle of consideration opens additional space for accommodation of his “Oedipus” complex by the entire mankind.


*14*  Freud. Totem and Taboo, pg. 134.


*15*  e.g., in: Freud. The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis 260–267; Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety 80; Beyond the Pleasure Principle 657; The Ego and the Id 705–707; Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego 679, etc.


*16* Primarily, the Freud’s “metapsychology” was based on the Freud’s own “Oedipus” complex. Then, Freud elaborated the application of his Oedipus complex to “every child” and supplemented his inventory of the “unavoidable and normal” with constitutional bisexuality and cannibalism. For instance, he asserted that the interplay of “constitutional bisexuality of each individual” with Oedipus complex and the “relative strength” of the masculine and feminine disposition result in self–identification of a boy with his mother or with his father; such self–identification determines the sexual disposition of a child. The child’s super–ego preserves the character of a father and determines development of the child and of the human race. “The bisexuality originally present in children” culminates in identification with a father: a boy develops “straightforward sexual object–cathexis toward his mother.” Then, the boy notices that father “stands in his way with his mother” and begins to experience the hostile wish to replace his father. Originally, his libido has the first – oral phase, in which cannibals exist. The developed “ego–ideal” is “the heir” of Oedipus complex and “the expression” of the internal impulses and changes of the libido; each individual has “the phylogenic endowment… – his archaic heritage” – to go through the process of formation of the ego–ideal. The conflict between “the ego–ideal” and “the ego” is the reflection of the contrast between the reality and the mentality [Freud Beyond the Pleasure Principle 657; The Ego and the Id 705–707; Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego 679].

The referred above text has three implications.

1/ It allows conclusion that the roots of Freud’s “metapsychology” are in the heathen doctrines developed on the foundation amassed by the ancient Minoans; one of such doctrines is Tantra.

For instance, concerning Freud’s “constitutional bisexuality of each individual” it should be noticed that some philosophical and religious doctrines concentrate on psychic androgyny and achievement of the “wholeness” without sexual orientation. Sudhir Kakar has found similarity among Buddhism, Vedanta, devotional theism, and Tantra: although with different practices, the followers of these doctrines “seek to overcome” sexual self–consciousness and to achieve “a non–sexual identity” similar to their androgynous deities. The Tantrics achieve this goal through identification with “the mother goddess” and realization of their unconscious femininity through its “active integration” into their psyche [Kakar 163–166]. Such a goal might explain the reasoning behind Tantric ritual sexual act with a woman in her three roles: mother, daughter, and sister. As the matter of fact, Tantric rituals reflect the outlook of a male who serves female deity–death, yet, attempts to preserve own manhood (contrary to “kubebos”), therefore, to survive.

However, a notion of “a non–sexual identity” logically does not suppose existence of two or any of sexes. If “a non–sexual identity” of man is assumed to be similar to androgynous deities (e.g., Indra, Prajapati, and Shiva portrayed with the symbols of both sexes), which are able to be either “alternative androgyny” (man among men and woman among women) or “half–man, half–woman” [Kakar 166], it means that both logical constructions – man and his deities – still have a sexual nature/function. It means that this, what Sudhir Kakar identifies as “a non–sexual identity” achieved through the referred doctrines, in fact is unachievable in the same manner as any illogical assumption is unachievable.

Freud concentrates the struggle for bisexuality only on a mother as a possessor of the womb with which man seeks unification through a sexual intercourse. In Freud’s psychic reality, man degenerates into an embryo without a possibility to fashion himself into an androgynous deity–like being: the Freud’s concepts reveal the last stages of degeneration at which the mind even does not have a chance to survive and to begin the process of development

2/ Freud asserts that the first stage of his Oedipus complex is the oral phase or cannibalism. So it looks like in Freud’s psychic reality, the civilization begins with murder of a father, rape of a mother, and then, consumption of flesh of dead parents, and these acts constitute psychic inheritance of each child and have to be reenacted in a process of development of each human being.

Unfortunately, Freud did not elaborate – who would be eaten first during development of the child’s ego–ideal – a rival–father or a sexual object–mother?

3/ Freud’s assertions and “psychic reality” disclose the mentality of their creator who attempts to impose own peculiar properties onto entire mankind.

Expressing the mutual concerns of those who believe that science without unbiased and independent evidence, which proves and justifies assumptions, inferences, and hypotheses, does not exist, Ludwig Wittgenstein defines psychoanalysis as the technique of imposing interpretation, which is not a science; psychoanalysis is a mythology, a kind of persuasion, or – in Donald Levy’s interpretation – “a kind of crude religion.” As soon as psychoanalysis leads a patient to acceptance of a suggested motive as a reality, “this is not a matter of discovery, but of persuasion,” and there is no possibility to ascertain that the results of psychoanalysis are not “delusion” [Wittgenstein ref. and qtd in: Levy 2, 10–11, 18, 44; Levy 2]. 

*17* Although establishment of Freud’s “metapsychology” as the new world–wide religion was not successful, it had tragic influence on the contemporary culture. The opinions concerning Freud’s legacy occupy the range from absolute intolerance to Freud and his ideas to deification of Freud and acceptance of his writings as prophetic revelations. For instance, an educator – Professor of Religious Studies – refers to Freud as to “an architect of contemporary culture” who “sculpted” self–understanding of contemporary men and “helped to shape” the modern world [Jonte–Pace 4, 30]. In 1981, Freud’s speculations earned new recognition as the works of “undiminished importance”; moreover, the same researcher discovered that “Without metapsychology we cannot begin to think” [Arnold H. Modell qtd. in: Grubrich–Simitis 104]. A Hindu researcher perceives psychoanalysis as “very much a child of Western culture” linked with the Western philosophical tradition; he finds in Freud’s works “the echoes of Nietzsche’s ideas” and compares a psychoanalyst with a sculptor who reveals the statue concealed within the stone [Kakar 8, 10, 275]. Another researcher evaluates Freud’s psychoanalysis as “that mental disease whose therapy it claims to be” [Karl Kraus qtd. in: Levy 31]. Some authors have found “intriguing parallels” and similarity between psychoanalysis and shamanism (both are dealing with myths) [e.g., Levi–Strauss ref. in: Kakar 114; Kakar 115].







Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Jacob Milgrom. The Anchor Bible, v.3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Bakan, David. “Freud’s Paper on Demonological Possession.” Freud and Freudians on Religion: A Reader. Ed. Donald Capps. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2001.89–93.

Baybrook, Gar. Heresies of the Christian Church. Payson, Arizona: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1998.

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. Robots, Men and Minds: Psychology in the Modern World. New York: George Braziller, 1967.

Capps, Donald. “Introductions.” Freud and Freudians on Religion: A Reader. Ed. Donald Capps. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2001. 1–7; 85–87.

Brill, A.A. “Translator’s Introduction.” Totem and Taboo: Resemblances between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics by Sigmund Freud. Trans. A.A. Brill. Mineola, New York: Dover, 1998. ix–xi.

Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher: The Fragments. Collected and translated with explanatory Notes by Pieter Willem van der Horst. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1984.

Delaney, Carol. “Why Do We Have to Read Freud?” Teaching Freud. Ed. Diane Jonte–Pace. American Academy of Religion: Teaching Religious Studies Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 178–194.

Dodds, E. R. "Introduction. Commentary." The Elements of Theology by Proclus. 2nd ed. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1992. ix–xlviii; 187–321.

Freud, Sigmund. The Major Works of Sigmund Freud. 2nd ed. Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Freud, Sigmund. Totem and Taboo: Resemblances between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics. Trans. A.A. Brill. Mineola, New York: Dover, 1998.

Gay, Peter. “Sigmund Freud: A Brief Life.” Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety by Sigmund Freud. Trans. Alix Strachey. Revised and ed. by James Strachey. With a biographical introduction by Peter Gay. New York & London: W.W. Morton, 1989. ix–xxiii.

Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. 1955. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1986. 2 vols.

Grubrich–Simitis, Ilse. “Metapsychology and Metabiology: On Sigmund Freud’s Draft Overview of the Transparence Neuroses.” A Phylogenetic Fantasy: Overview of the Transference Neuroses by Sigmund Freud. Ed. With an Essay by Ilse Grubrich–Simitis. Trans. Axel Hoffer and Peter T. Hoffer. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987. 73–107.

Jacobs, Janet Liebman. “Rethinking Freud: Gender, Ethnicity, and the Production of Scientific Thought.” Teaching Freud. Ed. Diane Jonte–Pace. American Academy of Religion: Teaching Religious Studies Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 165–177.

Jonte–Pace, Diane. “Introduction: Teaching Freud and Religion.” “Teaching Freud in the Language of Our Students: The Case of a Religiously Affiliated Undergraduate Institution.” Teaching Freud. Ed. Diane Jonte–Pace. American Academy of Religion: Teaching Religious Studies Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 3–14. 17–33.

Jung, Carl Gustav. The Essential Jung. Selected and Introduced by Anthony Storr. New York: MJF Books, 1983.

Kakar, Sudhir. Shamans, Mystics and Doctors: A Psychological Inquiry into India and its Healing Traditions. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982.

Kripal, Jeffrey J. “Teaching the Hindu Tantra with Freud: Transgression as Critical Theory and Mystical Technique.” Teaching Freud. Ed. Diane Jonte–Pace. American Academy of Religion: Teaching Religious Studies Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 213–237.

Levy, Donald. Freud Among the Philosophers: The Psychoanalytic Unconscious and its Philosophical Critics. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1996.

Parsons, William. “Let Him Rejoice in the Roseate Light.” Teaching Freud. Ed. Diane Jonte–Pace. American Academy of Religion: Teaching Religious Studies Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 79–99.

Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo. Complete and Unabridged. Trans. C.D. Yonge. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1993.

Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Letters. Eds. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Bollingen Series LXXI. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1989.

Radice, Roberto, and David T. Runia in collaboration with R.A. Bitter, N.G. Cohen, M. Mach, A.P. Runia, D.Satran, D.R. Schwartz. Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1937–1986. Leiden, New York, København, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1988.

Runia, David T. Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, v.32. Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1995.

Sachs, Hanns. Freud: Master and Friend. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1944.

Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. With an English translation by Richard M. Gummere. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP; London: William Heinemann, 1967. 3 vols.

Shipley, Graham. The Greek World After Alexander. 323–30 BC. London: Routledge, 2000.

Strachey, Alix. “Editor’s Introduction.” Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety by Sigmund Freud. Trans. Alix Strachey. Revise and ed. by James Strachey. With a biographical introduction by Peter Gay. New York & London: W.W. Morton, 1989. xxv–xxxvii.

The Sunset Knowledge: The Sacred Doctrines of Babylon, Egypt, and India. St. Petersburg, 1837.  (Russian)

Wallwork, Ernest. “The Challenge of Teaching Freud: Depth Psychology and Religious Ethics.” Teaching Freud. Ed. Diane Jonte–Pace. American Academy of Religion: Teaching Religious Studies Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 238–257.

van Winden, J.C.M. Archè: A Collection of Patristic Studies. Ed. J. Den Boeft and D. T. Runia. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. v. XLI. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1997.

Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary by J.H. Lesher. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1992.





Posted August 10, 2011

Original post July 27, 2008





Copyright (c)2010 Sunday's Thoughts &