Amaleq13

Please identify some scholars who also hold this opinion.

Regardless of the importance you place on the claim, you did make it and should not complain if asked to support it. Given how commonly held you consider it, doing so should not be difficult.

Claimants are expected to be able to support all their claims. This isn't the kiddie pool, amigo.

jgibson000

Well, I agree for the most part (though see, e.g., Krister Stendahl's The School of St. Matthew (or via: amazon.co.uk)). But for many Jews the LXX was the OT itself.

In any case, what you claim above does not seem to be what you were claiming in your previous post in which you said that early Christians used as Philo (through Origen?) as their source of what OT/ LXX quotations they use.

JG

mountainman

My earlier claim in my previous post was devoid of serious research.
I will honestly admit that until you challenged me, I was operating
under the false impression that Philo was in some part responsible
for the extant greek LXX translations in the 1st CE, not just a known
author who made comments upon the LXX.

One lives and learns, and on this occasion Master Gibson, you
have been an instrument by which I have improved my understanding
of Philo's role as an author in our common antiquity.

Thanks. And best wishes,


Pete Brown

yalla

"It has always been recognized that Johannine thought has some sort of affinity with that of Philo" p.54
"It has often been assumed, in ancient and modern times, that the Johannine Logos is identical with the Philonic". p.55 Continues..."This is a matter that calls for investigation".
"There is, however, a real affinity between the two writers in their use of symbolism..." p.55
"If we now assume....the extent of parallellism between Philo and the Fourth Gospel becomes remarkable". p.71
"It seems clear, therefore, that whatever elements of thought may enter into the background of the Fourth Gospel, it certainly presupposes a range of ideas having a remarkable resemblance to those of Hellenistic Judaism as represented by Philo." p.73

Ok the above does not say "read and knew'' and is talking about the realm of ideas and symbols etc which is not a specific passages of words, and it's about g"John" not "Mark" and so on.
But it does suggest some sort of relationship between [a] NT writer[s] and Philo does it not?
From:
C.H.Dodd "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk)" C.U.P 1953

yalla

More on the relation ship, if any, between NT writers and Philo, according to scholars.

D. Nineham "St. Mark" Pelican 1963 writes with specific reference to this particular alleged Philo/"Mark" parallel:

"The highly speculative character of any such theories will be obvious enough....

[Such] an attitude of suspended judgement seems preferable to that of most recent commentators who dismiss the parallel as pure coincidence....

The parallels are rather more striking than that [refers to omitted material] suggests, though on the other hand ...........no explanation of the resemblances so far put forward really carries conviction....

Further discussion here would be out of place. especially as St."Mark" was no doubt quite unaware of any such pagan parallels...."
pages 418-419

I have tried not to butcher the meaning of the whole section.

yalla

jgibson000

I hope you will note that Dodd wrote all of this before the Dead Sea Scrolls had a chance to have a real impact on NT studies. Indeed, when you look at Dodd's discussion of the "background" of GJohn (pp. 3-130), it seems that when he was writing The Interpretation, he was unaware of the DSS -- or at least what was in them -- since the theology and imagery and understanding of Judaism in the DSS figure not a whit. On top of this Dodd was still working in The Intrepretation under the assumptions prevalent at the time, but laid waste by the discovery of the DSS and the work of Martin Hengle and others, that not only was there was a "normative" Judaism within Palestine in the first century (i.e., that of the Rabbis), but that this Judaism had not been Hellenized and was a distinct entity from Hellenistic Judaism.

Though I cannot at the moment lay my hands on anything from Dodd on GJohn that is later than 1953, I do believe that after that, and in the light of the DSS, he changed his tune and saw that what he originally claimed within GJohn as reflecting the thought word exhibited in Philo was actually to be accounted for and explained by the theology and moral dualism of the DSS.

In any case, to my knowledge, the reputed affinity between the theology and language of GJohn and Philo, let alone the idea of the author of John's direct knowledge and use of Philo, finds few, if any, adherents today among Johannine or Philonic scholars.

Jeffrey Gibson

andrewcriddle

The idea of the 'Alexandrian version' of Mark is based on the letter of Clement of Alexandria about 'Secret Mark'.

Many people regard this as a modern forgery (there have been various threads about it on this forum. )

Andrew Criddle

yalla

Gidday Jeffrey,
Thanks for that, I have checked out my sources, mainly the net cos I have very limited access to libraries etc, and it seems there was a watershed in the 60's leading to relating g"John" to the DSS at the expense of the other[s].
This quote I found from Cross seems to sum up what I could find and what you said:
"It now seems....that John has its strongest affinities not with the Greek world, or Philonic Judaism but with Palestinian Judaism".
Which puzzles me a little.
Granted that there are affinities between g"John" and Pal. Judaism, does that necessarily negate those affinities previously cited with respect to the other 2spheres of thought?
Dodd's points of similarity between g'John' and Philo do not disappear even if those of the DSS are accepted as stronger.
Could it mean that the group of characteristics Gk/Philonic Judaism/g"John" can simply be extended to include the material from the DSS, even if the latter is most significant?
I guess what I'm asking is are these categories mutually exclusive, was the regional compartmentalisation so strong as to preclude links between the author of "John", Alexandrian Hellenistic and Judaistic thought and Palestinian thought?
Could they have cross fertilized each other or have been intertwined in some complex manner from previous material?
This is virgin territory for me.
cheers
yalla