Yes, but too early to be drawn in. There is certainly a connection and also cultural ones with the Near East in general.

Greek Gods are or seem to be linked to Sumerian gods. The idea of hospitality, an ethical concern, is in both the Iliad and the Jewish works.

one last. its probably a mistake to see ancient Greece as European when the evidence suggests deep influence by the Near East, Samson and Hercules are the same. Greece as Europe is a later myth.

Stanley Wilkin the thing is at what aspect and a "Level of the Real" we may afford this similarity (or just a correspondence). At some point of view, the difference of the Torah and the Bible is in processing: the Bible is a result of some kind processing (i.e. universilizing and regularization) of the Torah (as well as the Torah was given only to Israel, but the Bible is a universal gift of G-d to the Humanity). Besides this, we today at a threshold of a unevitable reconcideration of what "Europe" and "European" is, but this seems not to be something extreme and unpredictable, but something very "normal" for way for the European history and way of existence...

Dear concerned,

This is an important question historically speaking, which is to say not merely on a philosophical plane.

In both respects Stanley in his first point satisfies the question in brief.

We must recall that the Classical history and philosophy of languages is largely attributed by the Greeks themselves to a Semitic and Hamitic origin.

Therefore, it is not a late admixture of scion or philosophy; but an early one. We may start by saying, where did Pythagoras, Plato and other Graek Philosophers study, was it not in Aegypt, for the cornerstones of their learning.

Herodotus, likewise spoke continually of the east, or Aegypt or Africa (Libya).

The Classical Historian Aeschylus (6th cent B.C.) in relation to the origin of the Greeks, likewise give a locale in Semitic and Hamitic world.

Who, one may ask, founded Argus?

Who brought over the so-called Greek script?

These were Semites and Hamites!

Who was 'King of the gods', a deified king indeed, who was of both Semitic and Hamitic descent.

These were relatives to the Hebrew people, who are also Semitic. But not merely related through common Semitic heritage, which can be vast in our minds, but direct descent. The king of the gods Zeus, was a Semite, and more over a Hebrew by blood.

And what is more, from the direct line, meaning, a descendant of Heber (Ober) no less.

These statements can be readily evidenced (as will be shewn in a forthcoming work of mine, or related material in my 'Archaeology of the Gods', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaH6Sla3LCU&ab_channel=AETHIOPSOC%3AAethiopiologicalSociety).

As for a later generation, Herakles is stated by the Jews themselves - to have married a great granddaughter of Abraham (Josephus 'Antiquities...', bk.ii cap. xv, and Artapanus 3rd cent B.C.).

After the time of Heracles, was intermarriage, east and west continued down to time of the Troyan war (13 century B.C.) certainly, to mention this circumstance.

We may also speak of Manetho, Aegyptian Priest from the Hellenistic Period who wrote in Greek (3rd cent B.C.) an Aegyptian history, with an extensive Canon of Aegyptian Pharaohs. And he cited therein for it Classical personages, shewing that he had knowledge and command of the Classics. He begins his history with what he calls the dynasty of the deified (deities), which are all classical figures, albeit his Chronology on that matter of this dynasty in question is quite wrong.

Thus back to the question of Philosophy. Exchange was continued. Semitic, Hamitic, and so-called European. And Philosophical exchange. Trade. &c.

Let us not get into the origin of the word Europe!

And the Septuagint, was translated into Greek, by a Greek King no less, who was also a Ptolemaic Pharaoh (3rd cent. B.C.). For what purpose, History yeah!, notwithstanding, also Philosophy, for the love of Hebrew wisdom, besides that of the Greeks and the world, and for divinity's sake.

Most Sincerely

Rev Deacon Gabra AGZIAABHIR JR

One of the most important (also - interesting) points is compatibility of WHAT we may see and imply from an outer point of view (being historians) and WHAT we dare to say and to imply, being WITHIN the tradition. This may be also formulated as the "Secularity Problem", because authentic traditions have very strong inner mechanisms to prevent transgression...

Dear Alexandre,

X...ANASTI,

When the time comes that those things that were not known become known to the historian, who is both within and without - in their considerations, then we need not be timid henceforth, but speak and disseminate that attained and attainable.

Lack of understanding, on the part of history, and thus in addressing a mutual philosophy, or foundation thereof, may also lay in a lack of impetus in addressing the issue. You, here address one such issue in your question. However, it is only by the TRUE will to answer the question will the divine aid one in reaching its conclusion.

Notwithstanding, many 'Chronicons' have been compiled in the pursuit of such a question, albeit, that they each were able to answer, but merely portions of the 'whole'. And oft with much chronological problems. Newton* for example, in his chronological work on Aegypt - the Classics and Jewish history and thus Philosophy, all at once confounded the chronology. Yet understood nonetheless, that all share in a mutual historical and philosophical root.

* 'The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended', cIↄIↄccxxviii

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Vs. לַכֹּ֖ל זְמָ֑ן וְעֵ֥ת לְכָל־חֵ֖פֶץ תַּ֥חַת הַשָּׁמָֽי

Dear Concerned

Here I have given two citations, the latter from Plato (5th/4th cent B.C.), the former from Solomon (10th cent B.C.). They speak or philosophize of the manifest created things.

"HE has brought all things into being in their time, in order that man cannot work out the things of the ALMIGHTY, from the beginning even unto the end"*

*Eccles. iii.11

(Observe that I have translated EL which means 'might', in this context as ALMIGHTY).

"To discover, therefore, the 'artificer' and 'father of the universe' is indeed difficult; and when found it is impossible to reveal him through the ministry of discourse to all men."*

*'Plato: The Timaeus', by Plato, Trans. by R. Catesby Taliaferro, pp. 107 - 110, 1944 (1952)

But more fully, hereafter:

Timaeus says: "Indeed, Socrates, since those who participate but the least degree of wisdom, in the beginning of every undertaking, whether small or great, call upon Divinity, it is necessary that we (unless we are in every respect unwise) who are about to speak concerning the universe, whether it is generated or without generation, invoking the Gods and Goddesses, should pray that what we assert may be agreeable to their divinities, and that in the ensuing discourse we may be consistent with ourselves. And such is my prayer to the Gods, with reference to myself; but as to what respects the present company, it is necessary to pray that you may easily understand, and that I may be able to explain my meaning about the proposed subjects of disputation. In the first place, therefore, as it appears to me, it is necessary to define what that is which is always real being, but is without generation;

and what that is which is generated indeed , or consists in a state of becoming to be, but which never really is. The former of these indeed is apprehended by intelligence in conjunction with reason , since it always subsists according to same. But the latter is perceived by opinion in conjunction with irrational sense ; since it subsists in a state of generation and corruption, and never truly is. But whatever is generated is necessarily generated from a certain cause. For it is every way impossible that any thing should be generated without a cause. When, therefore, an artificer, in the fabrication of any work, looks to that which always subsists according to same , and, employing a paradigm of this kind, expresses the idea and power in his work, it is then necessary that the whole of his production should be beautiful. But when he beholds that which is in generation, and uses a generated paradigm, it is alike necessary that his work should be far from beautiful.

I denominate, therefore, this universe heaven, or the world, or by any other appellation in which it may particularly rejoice.

...To discover, therefore, the artificer and father of the universe is indeed difficult; and when found it is impossible to reveal him through the ministry of discourse to all men.

Again: this is to be considered concerning him, I mean, according to what paradigm extending himself, he fabricated the world—whether towards an exemplar, subsisting according to that which is always the same, and similarly affected, or towards that which is generated. But, indeed, if this world is beautiful, and its artificer good, it is evident that he looked towards an eternal exemplar in its fabrication. But if the world be far from beautiful, which it is not lawful to assert, he necessarily beheld a generated instead of an eternal exemplar. But it is perfectly evident that he regarded an eternal paradigm. For the world is the most beautiful of generated natures, and its artificer the best of causes. But, being thus generated, it is fabricated according to that which is comprehensible by reason and intelligence, and which subsists in an abiding sameness of being. And from hence it is perfectly necessary that this world should be the resemblance of something. But to describe its origin according to nature is the greatest of all undertakings. In this manner, then, we must distinguish concerning the image and its exemplar. "

To recall, your question heading is:

Can we use Jewish tradition for understanding classical philosophy?

And you go on to say, if I rightly recall it, 'and what impact can or may it have on the present intellect or circumstances, in the present world situations.

Evidently yes!

Most Sincerely,

The first and main source for viewing the classical tradition through Jewish eyes is of course Philo of Alexandria. Later, Christian authors debated the relationship of Jewish tradition and classical philosophy, such as the philosopher Celsus and his opponent Origenes. Even later, Augustine read Plato for Christian theology, and Thomas Aquinas read Aristotle for Christian theology. Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical "Fides et ratio". But I do not know of any modern Jewish thinker who wrote about it. These would be my entrance points to open the debate.

By examining the Jewish tradition Alexandre Bermous through the lens of classical philosophy, we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of God, the universe, and humanity's place within it. The Talmud and other Jewish texts contain a wealth of philosophical insights, which, when properly interpreted, can shed light on fundamental questions such as the existence of God, the nature of evil, and the human condition.

For example, the concept of "Ma'aseh Mercavah" (the Divine Chariot) in Ezekiel's vision can be seen as a symbolic representation of the Aristotelian notion of the celestial spheres and the hierarchical structure of the universe. Similarly, the Talmudic concept of "Tzimtzum" (contraction) can be understood as a philosophical notion of the divine self-limitation, which has parallels in the ideas of Plotinus and other Neoplatonic thinkers.

Moreover, the Jewish tradition emphasizes the importance of reason and intellectual inquiry, as expressed in the phrase "Know before Whom you stand" (Pirkei Avot 3:1). This encourages us to engage in philosophical contemplation and to seek wisdom, while also recognizing the limitations of human knowledge and the importance of humility. Best: stephen