Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-19-2013, 11:51 PM

My God, what insipid questions? It's like arguing that because chocolate is brown it must be mud. Philo is addressing a Greek audience and describing what went on in the gatherings of the Therapeutae in terms the Greeks could understand - hence the references. But let's deal with the 'problem' - raised by the mountainman fan base - that 'therapeutae' can be used to describe those involved in pagan religions. As we just noted, Philo in Quod Omnis Probus liber sit, references the Essaioi and says the name sucks but that's what we're left dealing with.

Joan Taylor in her recent article (http://www.academia.edu/204958/Philo...sis_PROOF_ONLY) on the subject acknowledges (a) the Greek audience for Philo's writings and (b) his embarrassment with the Greek terminology to describe the groups noting:

Quote:

In terms of the name of the Essenes, it is the Stoics in Philo’s audience who might well have chortled at the understatement regarding the“imprecise” Greek etymology of the word “Essene.” Diogenes Laertius notes that there were five excellences of language: pure Greek, lucidity, conciseness,appropriateness and distinction, and that among the vices of usage “barbarism isthe violation of the usage of Greeks of good standing” (Vitae 7. 59). To get from ὁσιότηϛ, “holiness” or “piety,” to ᾿Εσσαῖοι, with only a sigma and an iota shared by both words, would have indicated some barbaric deformity, regardless of asimilarity in pronunciation: the true form would have been ὅσιοι, “holy ones.”Philo uses precisely this word later on, when he writes of “τὸν . . . τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων ὅ µιλον,” “the throng of the Essaioi or “holy ones” (Prob. 91).

Philo seems to subvert negative reaction by stating his true opinion couched in ironic understatement. At first sight it is a very poor card to play rhetorically to introduce a perfect example of goodness with a note that Jews got their Greek wrong. But Philo cleverly uses precisely this point again towards the close of his description of the Essenes. He writes: “In such a way philosophy without over-exactness of Greek names turns out athletes of virtue” (Prob. 88). Philo then makes a virtue out of his concession to the Jews” laxity of Greek language; he turns an apparent negative into a positive, accepting a lack of Greek exactness in the name of the group only to emphasise that substance is more important than mere superficiality of language. In the Hypothetica Philo does not even begin to go down this route. There he writes that the Essaioi are called (καλοῦνται) by this name “in my opinion” (παρὰ . . . µοι δοκῶ) because of their exceeding holiness (8.11.1).

The point about inexact Greek is avoided, though it may be implied. His rhetorical strategy here is simply to pass over the problem in silence. He could have done the same in Probus but he chose to make the issue explicit, and address it defiantly in the face of potential critics. Philo clearly thought the name was garbled Greek, but here he was probably wrong.

In the later Aramaic dialect of Christian Syriac there existed a fairly common word which could reflect Jewish Aramaic usage of the preceding centuries (lack of attestation being accounted for by the fact that the surviving sources for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the appropriate time are thin). In Syriac a holy person may be called a hasya” (emphatic).

This word translated Greek ὅσιοϛ in the Syriac Peshitta (Acts 2: 27; 13: 35; Titus 1: 8), and wouldexplain the usage of Epiphanius, who called ᾿Εσσαῖοι by the name of ᾿Οσσαῖοι Accordingly, it has been suggested that perhaps there was an equivalent Jewish Palestinian Aramaic form, even though it is not attested.

If this were the case,then Philo would have heard an explanation of the meaning of the word ᾿Εσσαῖοι and—being unfamiliar with Aramaic—assumed it was an explanation of Greek etymology. For Philo, in Probus, the Essenes are worthy of a designation related to holiness “because with them they have become above all attendants of God )(θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) not by sacrificing animals, but by being worthy to render their minds holy (Prob. 75).The term θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ is absolutely key in understanding the meaning of Philo here. In Philo’s writings this term repeatedly refers to cultic attendants of a deity, generally to priests and Levites in the Jerusalem Temple (Det . 160, Leg .3.135, Sacr. 13, 118–19, 127, cf. 120, Ebr. 126, Contempl. 11; Fug. 42, Mos . 2.135,149,274, cf. Mos. 2.67).

Philo also uses the word ironically. When Gaius Caligula decks himself in theregalia of the Roman god Mars, Philo scoffs at how his minions had to be “the θεραπευταί of this new and unknown Mars” (Legat. 97). This language is by no means unique to Philo, though, interestingly, it is not paralleled in the LXX. In epigraphy, literature and papyri this terminology is attested as far back as Plato.

On the basis of this meaning of “[cultic] attendant”or “minister”—with a specific reference at times to priests and Levites—Philo can use the word θεραπευτήϛ symbolically to refer to someone who “attends” God by means of a good, ascetic, wise and devoted life, one which (using the double-entendre) “heals souls” (cf. Plant. 60; Ebr.69; Mut. 106; Congr. 105; Fug.91, Migr. 124, Sacr. 127, Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.309; Virt. 185–6; Praem. 43–4).

As such, the Essenes are immediately placed in a category that Philo deemsultimately good in terms of the human relationship to the Divine: the true culticattendants of God who are deemed worthy to prepare their minds as sacrifices.This activity does not take place exclusively in the Temple, as does the activity ofthe attendants of God there, but can take place anywhere, as a result of thededication of the mind to God.

I know you have a brain Robert. Please use it again. Break free from the enchantress. You must recognize that this is over, somewhere in that brain of yours. Surely you can read, surely you can reason. I recommend using that portion of your brain right now.

stephan huller · 01-20-2013, 12:02 AM

You see I come to this forum to watch how people confront evidence which challenges their sacred presuppositions. Taylor has clearly laid out that 'therapeutae' is used by Philo in a specific way and consistent throughout the writings of Philo. It means 'attendants of God' rather than 'pagan healers.' I am fascinated to watch the inner psyche confront the realization that a sacred belief or a core belief has just been demonstrated to be a lie or untrue.

I am fascinated to see whether you have enough honesty in you to admit the truth. Not my truth, not Taylor's truth but the truth of how Philo consistently uses the term 'Therapeutai' and ultimate the Jewish nature of the sect itself. Please don't let me down Robert. I sincerely hope that you have the ability to admit the truth, the truth that is plainly evidence from the writings you obviously haven't read or haven't read closely enough.

stephan huller · 01-20-2013, 12:07 AM

And don't think I am trying to belittle you. If it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have investigated matters this deeply and developed the idea for a paper connecting the Therapeutai to the Simeonites. Truly I am indebted to you and Pete. But all of my happiness would be compromised none the same if you continue to persist in your folly.

Robert Tulip · 01-20-2013, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Please don't let me down Robert.

I read your lengthy quote from Taylor and it is not relevant to whether the Therapeuts of Lake Mareotis described in On the Contemplative Life admitted pagans among their number.

Philo says the Therapeuts came from all over. Jews did not come from all over. Therefore the Therapeuts included non-Jews. This is my stumbling block which you have not addressed. Even if the Therapeuts were primarily a sect of Hellenizing Jews, the points remaining at issue are whether they included non-Jews and whether they would have regarded Serapis as defiling.

Whether therapeuts were attendants or healers, whether they venerated Jewish texts, whether they had links to the essenes, none of these points are relevant to the question of whether their contemplation included non-Jewish aspects.

http://gblt.webs.com/The_Jewish_Orig...ristianity.htm is an interesting paper, although anti-Jewish. It states

Quote:

noted historian Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) states: "The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its proximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion [of Christianity]. It was first embraced by great numbers of Therapeutae, or Essenians, of the Lake Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much of its reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies....It was in the school of Alexandra that the Christian theology appears to have assumed a regular and scientific form; and when Hadrian visited Egypt, he found a church composed of Jews and of Greeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive prince."

You might say Gibbon was taken in by forgery in his comment about Hadrian, and that he says the Therapeuts were a Jewish sect. But it is conceivable that the abatement of "much of its reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies" illustrates the role of the therapeuts in the "regular and scientific" construction of Christian theology, in cooperation with non-Jews.

I say this because Paul's 'neither Jew nor Greek' suggests that even if Christianity was primarily invented by Jews, it must have been done in consultation with non-Jews, a project for which one would think Lake Mareotis would provide the ideal environment.

Eusebius in The History of the Church (2.17), in speaking of "Philo's account of the Egyptian ascetics," says Philo

Quote:

approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients.
3. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life ... he says that these men were called Therapeutæ and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshipped the Deity in purity and sincerity.
4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.
...7. Philo ... then adds the following account: Everywhere in the world is this race found. For it was fitting that both Greek and Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes, and especially about Alexandria.
8. The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the Therapeutæ's fatherland, to a certain very suitable spot which lies above the Lake Maria

So, there is some ambiguity. Gibbon and Eusebius say the therapeuts were primarily Jewish, but Eusebius emphasises they are found in all the nomes of Egypt, a fact most unlikely to be true of Jews.

stephan huller · 01-20-2013, 04:04 AM

That was a very disappointing response. You can read. You should know the difference between citing the opinion of an outdated historian with no specialized knowledge of the subject matter (= Gibbon) and Eusebius who has long been recognized to be in error for claiming the sect was Christian against a professor who specializes in this field (Joan Taylor is Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/...lor/index.aspx). You're still pretending there is any doubt about the status of the sect being Jewish. There is no doubt about the sects Jewishness. It is taken for granted in any study or any mention by a reputable scholar. The point of citing Taylor is to go beyond that and demonstrate Philo's consist use of therapeutai in his writings to mean 'attendants of God' and specifically the Levites and related figures in the running of the contemporary Jewish religion. It is unfortunate that very little of the Greek text of Philo has been placed on line but Taylor went through, text by text and I published her findings. There can now be no doubt about (a) Philo's Jewishness (b) Philo's application of the specific term therapeutai to the contemporary Jewish religion and (c) the specific understanding of the existence of a sect who are called by that name who lived near Lake Mareotis and embody the 'contemplative life' which Philo elsewhere says is the life chosen by Levites who reach a certain age (a sect in turn who Taylor identifies as being called 'therapeutai' on more than one occasion in his other writings).

The case is iron clad. As Taylor notes "on the basis of this meaning of “[cultic] attendant”or “minister”—with a specific reference at times to priests and Levites—Philo can use the word θεραπευτήϛ symbolically to refer to someone who “attends” God by means of a good, ascetic, wise and devoted life, one which (using the double-entendre) “heals souls” (cf. Plant. 60; Ebr.69; Mut. 106; Congr. 105; Fug.91, Migr. 124, Sacr. 127, Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.309; Virt. 185–6; Praem. 43–4)." But in this case, he is speaking of a sect, related to the Essenes who in turn embody 'the practical life' - which means they only partly give up affairs of this world. The sect called Therapeutai are another Jewish group who spend their lives entirely removed from 'affairs of this world' and instead contemplate the divinity with every waking hour and especially in their gatherings which are described at length in that text.

Philo is our only source for information about the Therapeutai. But as he is an adherent to the first commandment it would be impossible for him to commend a group who broke the most fundamental commandment and the cornerstone of his own Jewish identity - an identity has always been shaped by an intolerance and a prohibition against bowing down or participation in the worship of foreign gods. Yet this is the stumbling block for you because the cornerstone of your faith in Acharya S (or however you want to characterize that relationship) is indeed a delight and interest in Egyptian and foreign gods. So it is that you project your own wants and needs on a text that cannot possibly support such silliness. It's too bad because your behavior has made me question the value of modern education when it is so obvious that you don't care to bridle your own passion and personal needs when pretending to weigh evidence.

Iskander · 01-20-2013, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And don't think I am trying to belittle you. If it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have investigated matters this deeply and developed the idea for a paper connecting the Therapeutai to the Simeonites. Truly I am indebted to you and Pete. But all of my happiness would be compromised none the same if you continue to persist in your folly.

Quote:

Truly I am indebted to you and Pete.

Good man

stephan huller · 01-20-2013, 05:53 AM

On a more productive note. I have often noted that Philo's LXX - the original LXX - is not quite the same as our text which pretends to be the one of the Seventy. It is very early in the morning (I have been up because of a work related issue) but somewhere in my citations from Philo's writings there is a statement that Joseph 'praised' Levi and Simeon because of their slaughter of the sons of Shechem. The MT version of the section has Joseph condemn Levi and Simeon "Cursed be their anger" but the Samaritan text reads with a slightly different lettering "Beautiful is their anger" or "lovely is their anger." I think this is significant - i.e. that Philo's LXX was even closer to the Samaritan than our 'pretend LXX' text (which stands relatively close in some respects).

Iskander · 01-20-2013, 06:16 AM

Quote:

It is unfortunate that very little of the Greek text of Philo has been placed on line

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/philo/contempg.htm
Philo Judaeus
De vita contemplativa
(ed. L. Cohn and S. Reiter, post R. Khazarzar)

¦ 1. Ἐσσαίων πέρι διαλεχθείς, οἳ τὸν πρακτικὸν ἐζήλωσαν καὶ διεπόνησαν βίον ἐν ἅπασιν ἢ – τὸ γοῦν φορητότερον εἰπεῖν – τοῖς πλείστοις μέρεσι διενεγκόντες, αὐτίκα καὶ περὶ τῶν θεωρίαν ἀσπασαμένων ἀκολουθίᾳ τῆς πραγματείας ἑπόμενος τὰ προσήκοντα λέξω, μηδὲν οἴκοθεν ἕνεκα τοῦ βελτιῶσαι προστιθείς, ὃ δρᾶν ἔθος ἐν σπάνει καλῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἅπασι τοῖς ποιηταῖς καὶ λογογράφοις, ἀλλ’ ἀτεχνῶς αὐτῆς περιεχόμενος τῆς ἀληθείας, πρὸς ἣν οἶδ’ ὅτι καὶ ὁ δεινότατος εἰπεῖν ἀπαγορεύσει. διαθλητέον δὲ ὅμως καὶ διαγωνιστέον· οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀρετῆς αἴτιον ἀφωνίας γενέσθαι τοῖς μηδὲν καλὸν ἡσυχάζεσθαι δικαιοῦσιν. 2. ἡ...

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/philo/

aa5874 · 01-20-2013, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

You're still pretending there is any doubt about the status of the sect being Jewish. There is no doubt about the sects Jewishness. It is taken for granted in any study or any mention by a reputable scholar.

It is completely erroneous that the Theraputae were Only Jews--completely wrong.

The very texts state clearly that the Theraputae were also Greeks and from other nations.

Nowhere in the Entire Text does it state that the Theraputae were Only Jews.

On the Contemplative Life

Quote:

... Now this class of persons may be met with in many places, for it was fitting that both Greece and the country of the barbarians should partake of whatever is perfectly good; and there is the greatest number of such men in Egypt, in every one of the districts, or nomi as they are called, and especially around Alexandria; (22) and from all quarters those who are the best of these therapeutae proceed on their pilgrimage to some most suitable place as if it were their country...

stephan huller · 01-20-2013, 09:01 AM

Before 140 being 'Jewish' was open to anyone. After 140 Jews could no longer circumcise non-Jews. There was a large body of proselytes. But nothing Philo says references the sect as non-Jewish. The sect was Jewish. Whether or not there were non-Jews among the Jews by race, we don't know. But let's not forget Jews were everywhere in the Empire. What Philo says here about the dispersal of the Therapeutae he says about the Jews.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2013, 12:02 AM	#232
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You see I come to this forum to watch how people confront evidence which challenges their sacred presuppositions. Taylor has clearly laid out that 'therapeutae' is used by Philo in a specific way and consistent throughout the writings of Philo. It means 'attendants of God' rather than 'pagan healers.' I am fascinated to watch the inner psyche confront the realization that a sacred belief or a core belief has just been demonstrated to be a lie or untrue. I am fascinated to see whether you have enough honesty in you to admit the truth. Not my truth, not Taylor's truth but the truth of how Philo consistently uses the term 'Therapeutai' and ultimate the Jewish nature of the sect itself. Please don't let me down Robert. I sincerely hope that you have the ability to admit the truth, the truth that is plainly evidence from the writings you obviously haven't read or haven't read closely enough.

01-20-2013, 12:07 AM	#233
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And don't think I am trying to belittle you. If it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have investigated matters this deeply and developed the idea for a paper connecting the Therapeutai to the Simeonites. Truly I am indebted to you and Pete. But all of my happiness would be compromised none the same if you continue to persist in your folly.

01-20-2013, 04:04 AM	#235
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	That was a very disappointing response. You can read. You should know the difference between citing the opinion of an outdated historian with no specialized knowledge of the subject matter (= Gibbon) and Eusebius who has long been recognized to be in error for claiming the sect was Christian against a professor who specializes in this field (Joan Taylor is Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/...lor/index.aspx). You're still pretending there is any doubt about the status of the sect being Jewish. There is no doubt about the sects Jewishness. It is taken for granted in any study or any mention by a reputable scholar. The point of citing Taylor is to go beyond that and demonstrate Philo's consist use of therapeutai in his writings to mean 'attendants of God' and specifically the Levites and related figures in the running of the contemporary Jewish religion. It is unfortunate that very little of the Greek text of Philo has been placed on line but Taylor went through, text by text and I published her findings. There can now be no doubt about (a) Philo's Jewishness (b) Philo's application of the specific term therapeutai to the contemporary Jewish religion and (c) the specific understanding of the existence of a sect who are called by that name who lived near Lake Mareotis and embody the 'contemplative life' which Philo elsewhere says is the life chosen by Levites who reach a certain age (a sect in turn who Taylor identifies as being called 'therapeutai' on more than one occasion in his other writings). The case is iron clad. As Taylor notes "on the basis of this meaning of “[cultic] attendant”or “minister”—with a specific reference at times to priests and Levites—Philo can use the word θεραπευτήϛ symbolically to refer to someone who “attends” God by means of a good, ascetic, wise and devoted life, one which (using the double-entendre) “heals souls” (cf. Plant. 60; Ebr.69; Mut. 106; Congr. 105; Fug.91, Migr. 124, Sacr. 127, Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.309; Virt. 185–6; Praem. 43–4)." But in this case, he is speaking of a sect, related to the Essenes who in turn embody 'the practical life' - which means they only partly give up affairs of this world. The sect called Therapeutai are another Jewish group who spend their lives entirely removed from 'affairs of this world' and instead contemplate the divinity with every waking hour and especially in their gatherings which are described at length in that text. Philo is our only source for information about the Therapeutai. But as he is an adherent to the first commandment it would be impossible for him to commend a group who broke the most fundamental commandment and the cornerstone of his own Jewish identity - an identity has always been shaped by an intolerance and a prohibition against bowing down or participation in the worship of foreign gods. Yet this is the stumbling block for you because the cornerstone of your faith in Acharya S (or however you want to characterize that relationship) is indeed a delight and interest in Egyptian and foreign gods. So it is that you project your own wants and needs on a text that cannot possibly support such silliness. It's too bad because your behavior has made me question the value of modern education when it is so obvious that you don't care to bridle your own passion and personal needs when pretending to weigh evidence.

01-20-2013, 05:53 AM	#237
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	On a more productive note. I have often noted that Philo's LXX - the original LXX - is not quite the same as our text which pretends to be the one of the Seventy. It is very early in the morning (I have been up because of a work related issue) but somewhere in my citations from Philo's writings there is a statement that Joseph 'praised' Levi and Simeon because of their slaughter of the sons of Shechem. The MT version of the section has Joseph condemn Levi and Simeon "Cursed be their anger" but the Samaritan text reads with a slightly different lettering "Beautiful is their anger" or "lovely is their anger." I think this is significant - i.e. that Philo's LXX was even closer to the Samaritan than our 'pretend LXX' text (which stands relatively close in some respects).

01-20-2013, 09:01 AM	#240
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Before 140 being 'Jewish' was open to anyone. After 140 Jews could no longer circumcise non-Jews. There was a large body of proselytes. But nothing Philo says references the sect as non-Jewish. The sect was Jewish. Whether or not there were non-Jews among the Jews by race, we don't know. But let's not forget Jews were everywhere in the Empire. What Philo says here about the dispersal of the Therapeutae he says about the Jews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.