stephan huller

Can't you see how silly this is? Philo was a PROMINENT Jew living in Alexandria who spoke on represented 'Judaism as such' in Egypt (owing to the traditional prominence of Alexandria in Egypt). He is cited by Josephus with approval no less than Clement. The fact that Philo himself cites with approval this group called 'therapeutae' would certainly have been out of character for a leader of the Alexandrian Jewish community but even more so it would most certainly have also severed the approval that Josephus and Clement and everyone else in later antiquity had for him. I don't know why you can't get your head around this. We are not talking about a single literary work existing in limbo of unknown provenance. There are a chain of implications you have to consider when looking at this report. How could the Alexandrian Jewish community, Josephus a leader in the Palestinian Jewish community, Clement a later leader in the Christian community of Alexandria all have approved of a man who approved of a pagan community on Lake Maroetis? Think. Think. Stop being led by 'what you want to be true.' What you are suggesting not only doesn't fit what is in the text itself but also the chain of approving references in the contemporary world. Again how could the Jews of Alexandria, Josephus, Clement and all the later witnesses - including Eusebius - have approved of 'Philo the Jew' if he approved of a pagan cult? It makes no sense and it raises questions about your thinking process.

Sheshbazzar

As I wrote;
and;
Although not perfectly 'Jewish', they could hardly be accounted of as being 'pagans'.

Philo mentions whatever he desires to laud regarding these Therapeutae, and omits whatever is unpalatable regarding these Therapeutae, his distant Hebrew Israeli kin.

If they had really had been so terrific in his view in all matters of religion and its practice, he would have joined them and identified himself as being one with them. He does not.
There must have been solid reasons why he continued to distance himself from this absolutely 'perfect' Therapeutae sect.

I would expect with Philo being such a PROMINENT 'Jew' in Alexandria, his goal with this Hebrew Alexandrian Thereapeuta sect would have been to work at finally bringing these 'lost Israelites' into conformity with mainstream monotheistic Judaism.
This would have required the utmost in tact and diplomacy, thus we find him highly praising the postitve aspects of their sect, while being very careful and quiet about any such things as divided them from Judaism.
(Find where Philo or any other Jew ever makes even one negative statement regarding the Therapeutae. -That total lack of the normal Jewish criticisim and bickering among differing sects alone ought to tell you that there is something here that is not being told. The Therapeutae are much too faultless, to be being accurately portrayed.)


Philo knew better than to identify them as being 'Jewish', but was careful to accent such of their religious practices as were in agreement with Judaism.
It wasn't regarded as being a 'pagan' community, nor was it regarded as being a 'Jewish' community.
But as a Hebrew Israeli community to be reconciled into monotheistic Judaism. A prospective 'Jewish' addition. And with Clement, if he were actually personally familiar with the Threraputae, a prospective adopted 'Christian' community.

The only effective way to accomplish this would have been the subtle and soft approach. Any open criticisim or confrontation would have only driven a wedge forcing them further apart.

The remaining information on this Alexandrian Therapeutae sect, says what it says, if we simply allow it to speak for itself without imposing latter Christian or Jewish misconceptions and bogus claims upon it.

The Alexandrian Therapeutae DID NOT practice any known form of either 'Judaisim', or of 'Christianity'.
They were a cult unto themselves, with their own distinctive beliefs and practices.

Both factions have attempted to claim these Therapeutae for their own, Yet Philo, and his fellow Alexandrian Jews DID NOT keep the practices or that form of religion that these 'Therepeutae' did.
Nor did Philo, Clement nor any 'Christian' community keep the practices of the Therapeutae.

In each instance IF these religionists had actually found the 'Therapeutae' so much more admirable and superiour in their doctrine and conduct to their own affiliatiions, they would have joined and emulated them, rather than have simply tried to claim them, being at the last reduced to trying to accomplish post-humously upon paper, what they could not in reality.
The Alexandrian Therapeutae eventually simply died out, they never became anything else or anyone else.

mountainman

It was common practice to deify the Emperor - IOW "The Lord God Caesar" - after his death and sometimes while he lived. It was part of a phenomenom called the emperor cult and this included making statues of the emperors. This practice was traditionally distributed over the Roman Empire.

See Imperial cult (ancient Rome)


The idea of displaying all the statues of the past succession of "Lord God Caesars" in rows might be seen as arranging the statues in accordance to the chronological succession of the Roman Emperors.

Conybeare's statement about the similarities between the group described by the author of "VC" and the author of Porphyry's text has yet to be explained.
Conybeare himself - not I - makes this favourable comparison.

mountainman

Watch out for your own feet. You are not addressing the substance of the argument which listed at least 5 points wherein the author of "VC" presents views on various issues that are diametrically opposed to the views expressed in Philo's other works.


If you analyse these 5 or so issues listed and mentioned at least 3 times above you will notice that that each one not only is diametrically opposed to Philo's other works, but that in each case the issue serves the Christian agenda that Plato is subservient to Moses in all ways. This is precisely what Eusebius wishes to prove in his monumental work "In Preparation for the Bullshit Gospel". Eusebius wants us to believe that the religion and philosophy of the Greeks gentiles was borrowed from the Jews by Plato.

Do you want me to list these 5 poiints again so that they may each be openly addressed and discussed? These 5 issues are not only anti-Jewish but also anti-Hellenistic (in the traditional classical sense) and this indicates that they may have been formulated by the Christian propaganda machine, not the Jews.

mountainman

Conybeare himself - the expert opinion which appears to have been followed by all the modern Biblical Scholar experts - makes this comparison.


Conybeare then cites the text of Porphyry.



The control of perception of who the therapeutae were was originally held by the Church for over 1200 years.

That control of perception (Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius) was one in which Philo was a Church Father and a Christian Bishop and presented the therapeutae as Early Alexandrian Christians - the missing link between the Apostolic Age and the Early Christian Church of Alexandria.

Then along comes Conybear who's thesis is that Eusebius was deluded, Jerome embellished the delusion and Epiphanius simply lied .

Conybeare's thesis then is that the therapeutae were not Christian (as claimed for 1500 years by the authoritative EXPERTS) but Jewish.

Conybeare's thesis appears to have been universally accepted and has controlled perception for the last century or more.

This is supposed to be a discussion about the sources and our perception of the sources.

I have no idea why you are experiencing an onset of insanity.

Cognitive dissonance

Unlike some I don't take any of this stuff personally.

It's just a research project examining the sources.

I am sorry you feel uncomfortable.

mountainman

Pot


Kettle



Black

Sheshbazzar

I can't help but wonder. Did Conybeare anywhere flat out state that the Therapeutae absolutely were 'Jewish'?

As you can see my theses here distinguishes between 'Jewish' (Torah religion) and 'Hebrew' descent ('Israel')
There can be a considerable difference. The old time polytheistic Hebrews that were displaced or expelled (or exterminated) from Israel, never formally became 'Jewish' or 'Jews', and would have operated quite independent of 'Judaisms' Levitical authority and rulings. Perfect for the Alexandrian Therapeutae.

aa5874

This is most remarkable. Conybeare rejects the delusion and lies of Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius and then simultaneously exposes his own delusion.

It is true that "On the Contemplative Life" does not state the Therapeutae were Christians of the Jesus cult and also true that it also does NOT state the Therapeutae were Jewish.

Conybeare's opnion is just as flawed as those he claimed were delusional and liars.

There is ZERO corroboration--ZERO evidence--Zero support by any Jewish writer of the 1st century that the Therapeutae were a sect of Jews or lived anywhere in Judea.

In the History of the Jews No Jewish person has been identified as a Therapeutae up to the end of the 1st century.

stephan huller

Why wonder? If he says they were Jewish you will only ignore him. That's how you and Pete work. Turn over endless rocks looking for a sentence or a word taken out of context to support a moronic interpretation of the evidence. Indeed in over four hundred scholarly references to the Therapeutae ALL know and declare them Jewish. You ignore them too. This thread has been going on for weeks and no one has so much as (a) demonstrated that they were 'healers' (= cannot be therapeutae of Asclepius) (b) brought forward one person who isn't a mental case who thinks they AREN'T Jewish and (c) made even so much as one compelling argument for their being pagan (other than the idiotic name game), not being Jewish (other than the fact that Philo doesn't use the word 'Jew' to describe them) or how it could be possible that Philo would laud a pagan group of therapeutae in the middle of discussion which - even according to mm's own witnesses - is virulently anti-pagan.

Beside all of that you guys have a great argument going ...

stephan huller

I love aa. Being 'flawed' (i.e. 'not perfect') means that you get thrown to the dogs. Like any human opinion isn't 'flawed.' The only way that someone's opinion could transcend be flawed is if they built a time machine and saw the Therapeutae themselves with their own eyes - and then, according to Kant, our perception would still be flawed.

I love these absolutes that get established to justify never having read anything of note. 'Hey mom, just bought a brand new Ferrari ... what, there's a small scratch on the bumper? Oh well let's just drive it off a cliff. Useless now.'