Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exact provenance of the Corpus Hermeticum is still the subject of much debate. Emerging from the highly syncretic milieu of Hellenistic Egypt in the 2nd century CE, the Hermetica follows most directly from the Neoplatonic school but echoes many other preceding philosophical and religious traditions. This paper is concerned with exploring possible influences on Hermetic cosmogony outlined in libellus I of the Corpus Hermeticum, the Poimandres, with particular focus on its striking parallels to the sequence of creation outlined in the first book of Genesis, contrasted with Platonic metaphysics drawn from the Timaeus. Through a comparative analysis of these three texts in parallel, I establish that, while staying true to its Platonic heritage in the mechanics and characteristics of God as Demiourgos, — contrasted with the Old Testament's God as Kyrios, — the Poimandres departs notably in the sequence of creation to closely resemble the first book of Genesis, down to the mirroring of precise phrasing. My interpretation challenges the assertion of Walter Scott, first scholar to publish an English translation of the Corpus Hermeticum (1925) alongside extensive notes on his translations and a comprehensive history of Corp. manuscripts. Scott is firm that there was little to no Jewish or early Christian contribution to the cosmology of the Hermetica, but I suggest that the parallels between the Poimandres and Genesis are too strong for there to have been no connection at all.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".