Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-28-2013, 09:51 AM

There is no clear point to any of this. One cult member says 'we should explore' whether the cult was Buddhist with no evidence whatsoever. The other says anything to discredit the report from Philo. The question isn't whether we can be absolutely certain of any text. Philo COULD have been lying. The works of Philo COULD have been forged in antiquity or altered. But the question is what is MOST LIKELY here and by anyone's standards the only likely outcome is that Philo did write the report, that Philo is Jewish and the sect is Jewish.

stephan huller · 01-28-2013, 10:03 AM

And if this were Pete's one 'disagreement' or confrontation with the available evidence that would be one thing. But Pete hates everything - everything that gets in the way of his silly theory.

And speaking of silly theories, here's my beef with Acharya S. She wants to argue for a meta-theory where all the religions were connected as one. Why not champion Manichaeanism which linked Christianity, Buddhism and various pagan religions? This is the same criticism I have of Doherty's theory. If it actually existed in antiquity surely we would have a clear sign of its in the existing writings.

So if Acharya said that she believed that Mani was the apostle of light, Mani knew the truth and was an expert on Manichaeanism, people might take her seriously. But that would make her a scholar (i.e. to actually shut her mouth and spend years researching what actually is). Instead she takes on the appearance of a new age cult and makes 'proclamations' which have no basis in fact. Manichaeanism is an ancient precursor for what she is talking about, so why not go with it? The answer - she is an artist rather than a scholar.

Toto · 01-28-2013, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That is the "Collaborative International Dictionary of English" hosted on a Russian site, using Webster's 1913 as a source because it is now public domain.

...

I wonder what scholarship the 1913 edition of Websters used?

Obviously there were respected scholars c.1913 who very much doubted the genuineness and credibility of "VC".
...

They have been listed previously in this thread, which is turning into a major waste of time.

Look back to your own post #124, where you quoted David Satran as saying:

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 Schurer. Even Coneybeare's 1895 refutation "did not persuade all scholars (most notably not Schurer)," yet today this blip on the screen of scholarly repartee goes largely unnoticed.

I replied in post 125, and pointed out that your source seemed to uphold Philo while claiming that Eusebius had misinterpreted him.

Why are you recycling this question, as if no progress had been made, forcing me to spend time searching through the thread for the previous discussion?

You would probably need to learn German to fully appreciate the arguments for this being a Christian forgery. Or you could check further in Satran's source, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey By David T. Runia, which can be extensively previewed in google books.

Continuing the quote above, we read:

Quote:

On account of this popularity, Conybeare regarded it as worth his while to refute it in a long and learned excursus to his edition of the treatise. [166] Using a vitriolic but highly entertaining method of argument, he shows how Lucius' view is really a continuation under a different form of the old controversy between Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars on whether there was any apostolic authority for the institutions of monasticism. The ancient scholar Eusebius and the 19th cnetury scholar Lucius agree that Philo's descriptions are suspiciously Christian, but draw opposed conclusions. For Eusebius the Theraputae are proto-Christians; for Lucius it is proof that the work is not Philonic, but written later under his name. Conybeare, using the same methods of philology, shows that the work must be Philonic, and that any theological repercussions are irrelevant to the philological issue in question. [167] . . .

The pendant to Philo's loss of his status as Church Father honoris causa is the rediscovery of his status as a Jewish author. As we noted above, the rabbinic form of Judaism developed after Philo's death neglected or rejected the Philonic heritage. It was not until the late 16th century that Jews started to take notice of hims again . . .

This is driving me crazy. You keep typing that you want to explore things, but you don't explore them. You just keep repeating the same suggestions without adding any depth.

tanya · 01-28-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is driving me crazy. You keep typing that you want to explore things, but you don't explore them. You just keep repeating the same suggestions without adding any depth.

No depth.

ah.

Well, that perhaps explains why, Toto, you ignored my post 395.... Yes, another very shallow response, not really up to lofty standards of excellence, found within this thread, posts submitted by Stephan, with his color photograph of the nubile lass in post 403, or the incredibly sophisticated, urbane, and scholarly input from spin, in post 380.

:huh:

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is no clear point to any of this. One cult member says 'we should explore' whether the cult was Buddhist with no evidence whatsoever.

There are Greek sources (Homer, Thucydides, Plato) which employ the term (or a related term) "therapeutae" before Ashoka arrived on the scene. While there may have been a Buddhist influence after Ashoka's "conversion" this influence post dates the earliest Greek usage of the term "therapeutae".

Quote:

The question isn't whether we can be absolutely certain of any text. Philo COULD have been lying. The works of Philo COULD have been forged in antiquity or altered.

This is indeed a distinct possibility that cannot be summarily dismissed.

The author of "VC" named the group of people he describes by borrowing an extremely well respected and ancient classical Greek term. He describes a monastic settlement that is not attested to before the Pachomian movement in the 4th century. Furthermore it may be reasonably inferred that the Pachomian movement provided alternative shelter and community living arrangements - at least in part - for the 4th century class of pagan "therapeutae" whose temples were destroyed by Constantine.

Quote:

But the question is what is MOST LIKELY here and by anyone's standards the only likely outcome is that Philo did write the report, that Philo is Jewish and the sect is Jewish.

The very first question is what is POSSIBLE.

The question of what is MOST LIKELY has been answered differently (and often quite diametrically opposed) by various centuries and generations of scholars.

How did you get the franchise on the Genuine Snake Oil?

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And if this were Pete's one 'disagreement' or confrontation with the available evidence that would be one thing. But Pete hates everything - everything that gets in the way of his silly theory.

So huller here claims that my research and investigation of history, and the questions I have asked in this thread and elsewhere, are motivated by hatred for everything. Are there many posters who agree with this claim?

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Look back to your own post #124, where you quoted David Satran as saying:

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 Schurer. Even Coneybeare's 1895 refutation "did not persuade all scholars (most notably not Schurer)," yet today this blip on the screen of scholarly repartee goes largely unnoticed.

I replied in post 125, and pointed out that your source seemed to uphold Philo while claiming that Eusebius had misinterpreted him.

Why are you recycling this question, as if no progress had been made, forcing me to spend time searching through the thread for the previous discussion?

You would probably need to learn German to fully appreciate the arguments for this being a Christian forgery. Or you could check further in Satran's source, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey By David T. Runia, which can be extensively previewed in google books.

Continuing the quote above, we read:

Quote:

On account of this popularity, Conybeare regarded it as worth his while to refute it in a long and learned excursus to his edition of the treatise. [166] Using a vitriolic but highly entertaining method of argument, he shows how Lucius' view is really a continuation under a different form of the old controversy between Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars on whether there was any apostolic authority for the institutions of monasticism. The ancient scholar Eusebius and the 19th cnetury scholar Lucius agree that Philo's descriptions are suspiciously Christian, but draw opposed conclusions. For Eusebius the Theraputae are proto-Christians; for Lucius it is proof that the work is not Philonic, but written later under his name. Conybeare, using the same methods of philology, shows that the work must be Philonic, and that any theological repercussions are irrelevant to the philological issue in question. [167] . . .

The pendant to Philo's loss of his status as Church Father honoris causa is the rediscovery of his status as a Jewish author. As we noted above, the rabbinic form of Judaism developed after Philo's death neglected or rejected the Philonic heritage. It was not until the late 16th century that Jews started to take notice of hims again . . .

This is driving me crazy. You keep typing that you want to explore things, but you don't explore them. You just keep repeating the same suggestions without adding any depth.

The google index provides a PDF for Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey by David T. Runia.

This is a hefty work of 347 pages before the appendix commences.

I am working my way through it.

The key item used to explore the possibility that "VC" was written in the 3rd or 4th century is the overall pattern of evidence available for the desert monastic movement, which appears to be described as existent in the 1st century in "VC". You earlier referred to this as the Catholic Monastic movement.

This has not been explored via discussion.

OVER

stephan huller · 01-28-2013, 08:03 PM

why don't you meet with Runia or call him yourself. he's a very nice guy. he lives down under. tell him some of your crazy ideas. see how long it is before he hangs up the phone

mountainman · 01-28-2013, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...[SNIP]....

I quickly had to decide whether I wanted to continue the argument and be right or shut my mouth and be happy.

From your indignantly righteous and argumentative contributions here we know what you decided.

Toto · 01-28-2013, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

..
The key item used to explore the possibility that "VC" was written in the 3rd or 4th century is the overall pattern of evidence available for the desert monastic movement, which appears to be described as existent in the 1st century in "VC". You earlier referred to this as the Catholic Monastic movement.

This has not been explored via discussion.

OVER

The case for "VC" being written by Philo in the first century is based on a linguistic analysis.

There is some discussion of the question in G.R.S.Mead's "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten." From here:

Quote:

The appearance in 1895 of Conybeare's admirable edition of the text of Philo's famous treatise The Earliest Christians of Eusebius. On the Contemplative Life has at length set one of the ingeniously inverted pyramids of the origins squarely on its base again.

The full title of this important work is: Philo about the Contemplative Life, or the Fourth Book of the Treatise concerning the Virtues,--critically edited with a defence of its genuineness by Fred C. Conybeare, M.A. (Oxford, 1895). This book contains a most excellent bibliography of works relating to the subject.

The survival of the voluminous works of Philo through the neglect and vandalism of the Dark and Middle Ages is owing to the fact that Eusebius, in his efforts to construct history without materials, eagerly seized upon Philo's description of the externals of the Therapeut order, and boldly declared it to be the earliest Christian Church of Alexandria.

This view remained unchallenged until the rise of Protestantism, and was only then called in question because the Papal party rested their defence of the antiquity of Christian monkdom on this famous treatise.

For three centuries the whole of the batteries of Protestant scholarship have been turned on this main position of the Roman and Greek Churches. For if the treatise were genuine, then the earliest Church was a community of rigid ascetics, men and women; monkdom, the bête noire of Protestantism, was coëval with the origins.

These three centuries of attack have finally evolved a theory, which, on its perfection by Grätz, The Pseudo-Philo theory. Nicolas, and Lucius, has been accepted by nearly all our leading Protestant scholars, and is claimed to have demolished the objectionable document for ever. According to this theory, "the Therapeutæ are still Christians, as they were for Eusebius; but no longer of a primitive cast. For the ascription of the work to Philo is declared to be false, and the ascetics described therein to be in reality monks of about the year 300 A.D.; within a few years of which date the treatise is assumed to have been forged" (op. cit., p. vi.).

The consequence is that every recent Protestant Church history, dictionary, and encyclopedia, when treating of the Therapeuts, is plentifully besprinkled with references to the ingenious invention, called the "Pseudo-Philo."

This pyramid of the origins was kept propped upon its apex until 1895, when Conybeare's work Its Death-blow. was published, and all the props knocked from under it. Strange to say, it was then and only then that a critical text of this so violently attacked treatise was placed in our hands. At last all the MSS. and versions have been collated. With relentless persistence Conybeare has marshalled his Testimonia, and with admirable patience paralleled every distinctive phrase and technical expression with voluminous citations from the rest of Philo's works, of which there is so "prevalent and regrettable an ignorance." To this he has added an extensive Excursus on the Philonean authorship of the tract. If Philo did not write the De Vita Contemplativa then every canon of literary criticism is a delusion; the evidence adduced by the sometime Fellow of University College for the authenticity of the treatise is irresistible. . . .

You can read more of Mead on the sacred-texts site.

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

01-28-2013, 09:51 AM	#401
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There is no clear point to any of this. One cult member says 'we should explore' whether the cult was Buddhist with no evidence whatsoever. The other says anything to discredit the report from Philo. The question isn't whether we can be absolutely certain of any text. Philo COULD have been lying. The works of Philo COULD have been forged in antiquity or altered. But the question is what is MOST LIKELY here and by anyone's standards the only likely outcome is that Philo did write the report, that Philo is Jewish and the sect is Jewish.

01-28-2013, 10:03 AM	#402
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And if this were Pete's one 'disagreement' or confrontation with the available evidence that would be one thing. But Pete hates everything - everything that gets in the way of his silly theory. And speaking of silly theories, here's my beef with Acharya S. She wants to argue for a meta-theory where all the religions were connected as one. Why not champion Manichaeanism which linked Christianity, Buddhism and various pagan religions? This is the same criticism I have of Doherty's theory. If it actually existed in antiquity surely we would have a clear sign of its in the existing writings. So if Acharya said that she believed that Mani was the apostle of light, Mani knew the truth and was an expert on Manichaeanism, people might take her seriously. But that would make her a scholar (i.e. to actually shut her mouth and spend years researching what actually is). Instead she takes on the appearance of a new age cult and makes 'proclamations' which have no basis in fact. Manichaeanism is an ancient precursor for what she is talking about, so why not go with it? The answer - she is an artist rather than a scholar.

01-28-2013, 08:03 PM	#408
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	why don't you meet with Runia or call him yourself. he's a very nice guy. he lives down under. tell him some of your crazy ideas. see how long it is before he hangs up the phone

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.