aa5874

Philo did NOT mention that God had a Son called the Logos. The Logos appears to be a Platonic idea which predates Philo.

Duvduv

This fact MUST draw into question the authenticity of such a text written allegedly by Philo. I think it is worth and timely to investigate forgeries in the name of "Philo."

aa5874

It is the writing called "Chruch History" attributed to Eusebius that MUST be investigated for veracity and historical accuracy. Virtually All the claims that were made about Philo with respect to Christians, Mark and Peter in "Church History" turned out to be false or cannot be found in the works of Philo.

And the fiction in "Church History" may even apply to the Council of Nicea.

Duvduv

The letter in Legat. 155 attributed to Philo is so blatantly ignorant about Jewish practice that it could not possibly have been authentic.

Toto

What is your source for knowing what Jewish practice was in the first part of the first century? Are you trying to read earlier or later Jewish practice into the picture?

Duvduv

The Torah sets out the rules for this for when the Israelites conquer the land, and the mishnah etc. explains how it was carried out. There was never a single source that suggested that Jews ever redeemed their produce in other countries to send to Jerusalem.

Here is a summary:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...7_0_06495.html

Toto

Except for Philo, as a representative of Hellenistic Judaism.

There were lots of Jewish practices that deviated from the Torah. There were images painted on the walls of the Synagogue at Dura Europas.

How do you know what the actual practice was?

Or an alternative, before you assume that Philo was forged, is that Philo was presenting a case to the Emperor for better treatment of Jews in Egypt. He might have just been making things up that he thought would help his case. :huh:

Duvduv

There is no evidence that Philo deviated from normative Judaism of his time even in advocacy for other Jews. I don't think he had to invent the idea of Jews redeeming land in Alexandria (an urban center) when he could have done so any other way, i.e. via charity. I don't buy into this whole idea that a major Jewish spokesman would have been ignorant of Hebrew and Jewish sources any more than was Maimonides, who wrote mostly in Arabic.

Duvduv

Toto, although it is possible that the letter simply refers to a local practice rather than compliance with Jewish law, it merely amounts to charity perhaps based on tithing. But if that is so then why does thw writer bother to mention specifically first fruits? The harvest of first fruits to be brought to the Temple for Shavuot.
Charitable contribuions could always be made from anywhere.

Duvduv

Toto, this would indicate that the writer of this letter was not a Jew who knew anything about the practice of tithing agricultural produce, and who confused the simple practice of charity with a Torah agricultural requirement.