Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Do you even understand what Judaism is?

Only from close Jewish and/or Hebrew friends and from Arnaldo Momigliano, the Jewish-Italian ancient historian.

Quote:

I doubt it as you have no idea what Christianity is.

Don't bet.

Toto · 01-17-2013, 07:12 PM

I don't see what this whole thread is about.

Philo described a Jewish sect, the Essenes, and a related sect, which he called the Theraputae.

Maybe he made it all up, as Rachel Elior claimed. Maybe both the Essenes and the Theraputae were Platonic forms that existed only in hyperspace or in Philo's imagination as ideal types. But Elior's thesis does not seem to have survived.

If the Theraputae did exist as Philo described them, why would they not be Jewish? What difference does it make that there were other groups also known as Theraputae?

aa5874 · 01-17-2013, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However Philo is also suspected of being "Christianized" by later Christian preservers of his original writings...

You seem not to understand that Philo was NOT a Christian in a Jesus cult and did NOT ever claim to be one.

Philo argued that it was Ridiculous that a man could be mortal and immortal at the same time.
On the Contemplative Life

Quote:

...What, again, shall we say of the demi-gods? This is a matter which is perfectly ridiculous: for how can the same man be both mortal and immortal...

Effectively, Philo's writings do NOT support the very story of Jesus--an Immortal Mortal--God Incarnate.

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't see what this whole thread is about.

Philo described a Jewish sect, the Essenes, and a related sect, which he called the Theraputae.

Maybe he made it all up, as Rachel Elior claimed. Maybe both the Essenes and the Theraputae were Platonic forms that existed only in hyperspace or in Philo's imagination as ideal types.

I would not describe the Graeco-Roman "pagan" conceptual framework of antiquity as existing only in hyperspace or in Philo's imagination as ideal types because of the list of other pagan sources that make reference to the therapeutae. These people seem to have been kind of written out of history in favour of the Jewish Jesus Philo-at-arms-length connection.

Quote:

But Elior's thesis does not seem to have survived.

There are precedents before Rachel Elior.

According to the following source Philo's description of the therapeutae was treated as a 3rd century Christian forgery.

Quote:

Slightly more than a century ago, the description of the
"Therapeutae" found in the Philonic tractate On the Contemplative
Life was dismissed by Licius (1879) as a late 3rd century
Christian forgery in Philo's name in support of the emergence of
Christian monasticism. As David Runia reports in his masterful
study of Philo in Early Christian Literature (Van Gorcum &
Fortress 1993, 32), "his thesis received the seal of approval
from the eminent triad of German scholars, Zeller, Harnack and
Schu%rer. Even Coneybeare's 1895 refutation "did not persuade all
scholars (most notably not Schu%rer)," yet today this blip on the
screen of scholarly repartee goes largely unnoticed. Why?

Was there not good reason to question the existence of such a body of
monastics in the isolated areas to the west of Alexandria at such
an early date? Eusebius had treated this account as proof of
early Christian monastic/ascetic presence in Egypt, and even
reported that Philo had met with Peter in a trip to Rome.
Eusebius concludes:

"It is plain to everyone that when Philo
wrote this, he had in view the first heralds of the Gospel
teaching and the customs handed down by the apostles from the
beginning" (HE 2.17.24).

Eusebius explains at some length just
what Christian practices are being mentioned, even what
scriptural texts are being read by the Therapeutae. Yet when
Eusebius actually gives excerpts from Philo's tractate, they are
quite accurate and lacking in Christianized insertions or
manupilations. Can we learn anything useful from this
situation?

You can see that the "Church History" of Eusebius has Philo meeting Saint Peter in Rome.

I am still searching for other articles that discuss the "Christianization of Philo".

Quote:

If the Theraputae did exist as Philo described them, why would they not be Jewish?

The first question is whether the Therapeutae existed as Philo described them.

The Roman Empire was not filled with Jews and Christians in the first three centuries.

It was filled with pagans.

The Jewish therapeutae description in Philo may be a "red herring" to keep us away from pagan history.

Pagan history tells us that the pagan therapeutae were "cast out" of the temples by Constantine, before Nicaea.

Toto · 01-17-2013, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...f the list of other pagan sources that make reference to the therapeutae. These people seem to have been kind of written out of history in favour of the Jewish Jesus Philo-at-arms-length connection.

These other theraputae have not been written out of history, :huh:

Quote:

According to the following source Philo's description of the therapeutae was treated as a 3rd century Christian forgery.

Read your sources more carefully. That text is the same as in a book by that author, Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Robert A. Kraft (previewed on google books.)

In the print text, that section is clearly labeled "accurate text but improbable interpretation" - meaning that the modern opinion is that the text was accurate but Eusebius improbably identified the Theraputae as early Christian monks.

I gather from that discussion that the claim of forgery was motivated by Protestant anti-Catholicism rather than any evidence.

Quote:

...

The Roman Empire was not filled with Jews and Christians in the first three centuries.

It was filled with pagans. . . .

It is estimated that about 10% of the population was Jewish. Philo was writing about Jews. I don't see that you have a point

aa5874 · 01-17-2013, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

You can see that the "Church History" of Eusebius has Philo meeting Saint Peter in Rome.
...

Now, read Philo and you will see no such thing.

It is most fascinating that you would believe Eusebius who you accuse of forging the TF.

The writings of Philo are NOT Christianized at all.

Philo did NOT ever argue that Jews should worship a man as a God and that Jesus abolished the Laws of the Jews.

Remember that Saul/Paul was supposedly a contemporary of Philo.

We know exactly how Christianized material would look.

We have the Pauline Epistles where is claimed that Jesus Christ Died For Our Sins and that Without the resurrection there would be NO Remission of Sins--See 1 Cor. 15

None of the writings of Philo are even close to the Blasphemy in the Pauline letters

The Blasphemous Christianized material were NOT inserted in the writings of PHILO.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 09:37 PM

There is no reason for mountain---- to twist himself into contortions about this Jewish sect except - that he is absolutely obsessed with Eusebius. You see the perversion. If you are willing to believe that Eusebius established Christianity from scratch - i.e. it's all Eusebius - how do you confront the evidence that Eusebius actually used ancient sources? This is why mountain--- has to kill Philo.

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I gather from that discussion that the claim of forgery was motivated by Protestant anti-Catholicism rather than any evidence.

No I think the appeal was to the evidence for the Christian monastic movement which is presumed to have commenced in the 3rd century.

Quote:

...

The Roman Empire was not filled with Jews and Christians in the first three centuries.

It was filled with pagans. . . .

It is estimated that about 10% of the population was Jewish. Philo was writing about Jews. I don't see that you have a point

Momigliano writes that "Philo is another historian who cannot be classified either a Greek or a Jew.":

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

p26
"Philo is another historian who cannot be classified either a Greek or a Jew."

p.27
"New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that
neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into
the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning.
II Maccabees, in spirit if not in form, is behind the Christian Acta Martyrum.
Philo's conception of history is related to that of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum.

More generally, Philo is the predecessor of the Christian Platonists.
Finally, Josephus is one of the writers without whom Eusebius would not have been able to invent Ecclesiastical History."

The whole point is about questioning the authority and the integrity of the Christian preserved source called Philo in regard to the therapeutae in antiquity and how this class of people were otherwise identified in the pagan (classical) sources. What do we do with the classical history about the pagan therapeutae? Treat it as coincidental ?

Robert recently linked to an alternative restatement of the issue underlying the OP as follows:

Quote:

The verb θεραπεύω/therapeuo in some form appears in some 300 extant Greek documents from antiquity, sometimes dozens of usages in the same text, for a total of thousands of instances. It is therefore hardly an obscure term. Yet, the scholarship concerning the mysterious Therapeuts of Philo makes it seem as if this word is very unfamiliar to both us and the ancient readers of Greek. That misconception needs to be disabused, as does the notion that Philo's Therapeuts were the only such individuals by that name in the Mediterranean of the time.

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 10:22 PM

Eusebius of Caesarea's Interpretatio Christiana of Philo's De vita contemplativa - Harvard Theological Review, July 01, 2004 --- Inowlocki, Sabrina.

Quote:

Philo of Alexandria's De vita contemplativa (henceforth VC) is one of the philosopher's most debated treatises. Indeed, it raises difficult questions of authorship and interpretation. Much scholarly attention has been devoted to the subject,

(1) investigating the authenticity of the attribution to Philo,

(2) the identity of the so-called "Therapeutae," the plausibility of their actual existence,

(3) and their possible relation to Christian monasticism and Essenism.

(4) In particular, as Jean Riaud has pointed out, in modern times, theological and apologetic agendas motivated the identification of the Therapeutae as either Jews or Christians.

I might paraphrase point (4) by saying that the wearing of Christian glasses by theological and apologetic agendas motivates the identification of the Therapeutae as either Jews or Christians.

My point is that when you take off the Christian glasses the therapeutae are pagan.

The following from David T. Runia ..... "Philo in Early Christian Literature"

Quote:

Originally Posted by David T. Runia

1. How Philo became a Church Father honoris causa

Philo the Jew from Alexandria lived from about 15 BC to 50 AD. His life thus exactly coincides with that of Jesus, whose life and teachings led to the foundation of the Christian Church. It is hardly surprising that neither Jesus himself or the nascent Christian communities are mentioned in Philo’s writings. He does tell us in one of his treatises that he used to travel to Jerusalem in order to pray and offer sacrifices,1 so it is not entirely imposs- ible that he was actually present in the city during the dramatic events of the end of Jesus’ life, which are recorded in full detail in the New Testament and briefly alluded to by Josephus.

Yet three centuries later Philo was regarded as an important witness to the beginnings of the Church, and by the end of the Patristic period he had virtually achieved the status of a Church Father.

and a summary therein of earlier scholarship ....

Quote:

Cohn and Wendland begin the prolegomenu to their monumental and still unsuperseded edition of Philo’s writings with the following words:

The preservation of Philo of Alexandria’s writings, which were almost entirely neglected by Jews no less than by pagans, was wholly dependent on the Christian Church. When Philo’s ethical doctrines and his method of interpreting the Old Testament were seen to be in close agreement with the sacred scriptures of the Christian Church, his works were enthusiastically and diligently read and taken over by ancient ecclesiastical writers.

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is no reason for mountain---- to twist himself into contortions about this Jewish sect

Is it beyond reason to ask for some external evidence for this Jewish sect outside of the Church-preserved dogma source called Philo ?

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

01-17-2013, 07:12 PM	#122
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't see what this whole thread is about. Philo described a Jewish sect, the Essenes, and a related sect, which he called the Theraputae. Maybe he made it all up, as Rachel Elior claimed. Maybe both the Essenes and the Theraputae were Platonic forms that existed only in hyperspace or in Philo's imagination as ideal types. But Elior's thesis does not seem to have survived. If the Theraputae did exist as Philo described them, why would they not be Jewish? What difference does it make that there were other groups also known as Theraputae?

01-17-2013, 09:37 PM	#127
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There is no reason for mountain---- to twist himself into contortions about this Jewish sect except - that he is absolutely obsessed with Eusebius. You see the perversion. If you are willing to believe that Eusebius established Christianity from scratch - i.e. it's all Eusebius - how do you confront the evidence that Eusebius actually used ancient sources? This is why mountain--- has to kill Philo.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.