Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 10-21-2006, 02:33 PM

I was thinking about the fact that Philo wrote about Pilate, but never wrote about Jesus. I was thinking that this showed Philo was covering the events that took place in Judea at that time and place, making his lack of mention of Jesus all the more striking, but then something even more important hit me.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo. Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that the gospels writers themselves read Philo and that they in fact used the works of Philo in their writings.

This being the case, does not this tell us HOW and WHY Pilate is encorporated into the Jesus story!!!

Here is where Philo is used by the gospels writers:

Quote:

Flaccus IV ; Philo

(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all his days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;

(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a scepter they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;

(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa [King Herod of the Jews] was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;

This undoubetdly was the inspiration for the mocking scene during the trial of Jesus. If this is so, then is it not also then most likely that the writer of Mark had also read:

Quote:

ON THE EMBASSY TO GAIUS - Philo

Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

Thereby making Pilate the obvious choice of the one to sentence Jesus to death?

Does not the testimony of Philo both:

1) Provide us with a greater "lack of evidence" for Jesus, since he wrote about Pilate but not Jesus

and simultanously:

2) Provide the written material to be used by the writers of the gospels some 40 - 50 years later.

k_smith123 · 10-21-2006, 06:13 PM

I believe it is quite right to suggest that Philo influenced the Gospel writers, but why should we stop with a couple of parallels? Philo argued that the writings attributed to Moses could be interpreted allegorically, so couldn’t the Gospel writers have intended for the Gospels also to be allegory? This approach could obviously explain Christ’s supposed miracles, as well as the literal errors and contradictions that Christians claim do not exist.

Vorkosigan · 10-21-2006, 06:27 PM

Mocking scenes are common in the literature and festival practice of the day. It is difficult to ascribe that scene to any particular scene in any particular text. It could simply be a mock triumph, such as was given to Sejanus when he was purged. Do you have any linguistic links between the texts, other than Barabbas/Carabbas? Also, are you aware that Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth argued that the Flaccus tale in Philo is the source for the whole gospel betrayal/last meal/etc scenes?

Michael

JoyJuice · 10-22-2006, 12:46 AM

Philo, a admirer of Heraclitus who talks about the Logos being the "divine spark" seems to had made use of the idea that to me cements the idea that the writer of John was well aware of Philo:

The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12 [ed. Mangey, i. 308]; "De Profugis," § 20 [ed. Mangey, i. 562]).

HERE

Malachi151 · 10-22-2006, 05:00 AM

Yes, I'm aware of those things. From what I know, Philo:

Described creation via “the Word”
Described mocking of a man as “King of the Jews”
Described Pilate as an enemy of the Jews
Described the death and transformation of Moses
Described the dual nature of Moses
Expounded upon the Holy Spirit
Expounded upon judgement after death

My primary concern in this thread, however, is his works on Pilate, and what they mean.

Pilate, has been a major stumbling block for me in regard to the Jesus Myth, but this seems to solve the issue.

Pilate is first mentioned in Mark. Every other reference to Pilate in Christian writings comes after Mark. Both "Mark" and "John", at least, seem to have been readers of Philo, as well as many other early Christians.

What I have found interesting, is that Christian "scholars" are all aware that Philo wrote about Pilate, in fact, they trumpet this fact as "more evidence that supports the existance of Jesus", merely because it helps to confirm the existance of this character in the narrative.

What they seem to overlook, however, is that this is really further evidence against the existance of Jesus because:

#1: It shows that Philo was writing about the goings on in Judea under the rule of Pilate, yet he makes no mention of Jesus or any circumstances anything like what is described in the gospels.

#2: Since Philo wrote before the gospel writers, and we have very good reason to believe that the gospel writers read the works of Philo, Philo then becomes the source for the Pilate character in the gospels!

Of course Pilate would not have ben unknown at the time the gospels were written, so they wouldn't really NEED him as a source, but I suspect that the gospels (at least Mark) were written by people wo had never been to Judea or anywhere near that region, as evidenced by their poor description of the area, and were thus using sources to provide them with the details they needed to craft the story.

gstafleu · 10-22-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

#1: It shows that Philo was writing about the goings on in Judea under the rule of Pilate, yet he makes no mention of Jesus or any circumstances anything like what is described in the gospels.

#2: Since Philo wrote before the gospel writers, and we have very good reason to believe that the gospel writers read the works of Philo, Philo then becomes the source for the Pilate character in the gospels!

Doesn't this need a

#3: The gospel writers than inserted the Jesus character into the time of Pilate.

Given that they apparently inserted a character that they knew not to be historical (from Philo), that would again plead for an allegorical reading of the Gospels (at least Mark and John).

Gerard

Malachi151 · 10-22-2006, 08:44 AM

I can only conclude that whoever wrote Mark obviously knew that they weren't writing history and that they were writing an allegorical work. Mark's gospel is crafted from the "old testament" scriptures and presumably Philo, obviously the writer was aware that he was copying and crafting, etc.

Did he intend the work to be taken as history? I'm not sure. either he was writing a story that was intended to be allegory, or he was writing with intent to deceive.

Matthew and Luke, seem to have had intent to decieve. Obviously Matthew crafted many additonal elements from the old scriptures as well, but his work seems to be more crude and blatant.

Luke, presumably also the author of Acts, was also writing fiction, but I'm not sure if he intended it to be taken as fact or not, but I think he did have this intent.

The gospel of John, it seems, was origionally a gnostic gospel, which was later revised and changed into an anti-gnostic gospel. This is the conclusion of many researchers on this subject based on the earliest references to John, and the collections that fragments of John are found in.

So, it seems that the origional author of John was perhaps writing allegorically, but the later revision had an intent to craft history.

This business of Philo and Pilate, however has really strengthened my conviction that there was no historical basis for the Jesus character at all.

jgibson000 · 10-22-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I was thinking about the fact that Philo wrote about Pilate, but never wrote about Jesus. I was thinking that this showed Philo was covering the events that took place in Judea at that time and place, making his lack of mention of Jesus all the more striking, but then something even more important hit me.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo.

We do? For a fact? Can you please tell me what backs up this clam? Can you provde any scholarly support for it?

Jeffrey Gibson

Malachi151 · 10-22-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

We do? For a fact? Can you please tell me what backs up this clam? Can you provde any scholarly support for it?

Jeffrey Gibson

Well, his works were mentioned by many of the earliest Christians, his works have been found in the collections of early Christians, and there are many correlations between his writings and those of the gospel writers that would indicate that they were reading them as well.

jgibson000 · 10-22-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, his works were mentioned by many of the earliest Christians,

Umm, like whom?

Quote:

his works have been found in the collections of early Christians

,

Such as?

Quote:

and there are many correlations between his writings and those of the gospel writers that would indicate that they were reading them as well.

Reallly? Could you pont us to some of these correlations? Are they, whatever they are, so exact so as to have no other explanaton except dependence upon or derivaton from Philo?

And where, as I asked you previously, can I find scholarly backing for your contention?

Jeffrey Giibson

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

10-21-2006, 06:13 PM	#2
k_smith123 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Wyoming Posts: 25	I believe it is quite right to suggest that Philo influenced the Gospel writers, but why should we stop with a couple of parallels? Philo argued that the writings attributed to Moses could be interpreted allegorically, so couldn’t the Gospel writers have intended for the Gospels also to be allegory? This approach could obviously explain Christ’s supposed miracles, as well as the literal errors and contradictions that Christians claim do not exist.

10-21-2006, 06:27 PM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Mocking scenes are common in the literature and festival practice of the day. It is difficult to ascribe that scene to any particular scene in any particular text. It could simply be a mock triumph, such as was given to Sejanus when he was purged. Do you have any linguistic links between the texts, other than Barabbas/Carabbas? Also, are you aware that Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth argued that the Flaccus tale in Philo is the source for the whole gospel betrayal/last meal/etc scenes? Michael

10-22-2006, 12:46 AM	#4
JoyJuice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Beautiful Downtown Tacoma Posts: 370	Philo, a admirer of Heraclitus who talks about the Logos being the "divine spark" seems to had made use of the idea that to me cements the idea that the writer of John was well aware of Philo: The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12 [ed. Mangey, i. 308]; "De Profugis," § 20 [ed. Mangey, i. 562]). HERE

10-22-2006, 05:00 AM	#5
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Yes, I'm aware of those things. From what I know, Philo: Described creation via “the Word” Described mocking of a man as “King of the Jews” Described Pilate as an enemy of the Jews Described the death and transformation of Moses Described the dual nature of Moses Expounded upon the Holy Spirit Expounded upon judgement after death My primary concern in this thread, however, is his works on Pilate, and what they mean. Pilate, has been a major stumbling block for me in regard to the Jesus Myth, but this seems to solve the issue. Pilate is first mentioned in Mark. Every other reference to Pilate in Christian writings comes after Mark. Both "Mark" and "John", at least, seem to have been readers of Philo, as well as many other early Christians. What I have found interesting, is that Christian "scholars" are all aware that Philo wrote about Pilate, in fact, they trumpet this fact as "more evidence that supports the existance of Jesus", merely because it helps to confirm the existance of this character in the narrative. What they seem to overlook, however, is that this is really further evidence against the existance of Jesus because: #1: It shows that Philo was writing about the goings on in Judea under the rule of Pilate, yet he makes no mention of Jesus or any circumstances anything like what is described in the gospels. #2: Since Philo wrote before the gospel writers, and we have very good reason to believe that the gospel writers read the works of Philo, Philo then becomes the source for the Pilate character in the gospels! Of course Pilate would not have ben unknown at the time the gospels were written, so they wouldn't really NEED him as a source, but I suspect that the gospels (at least Mark) were written by people wo had never been to Judea or anywhere near that region, as evidenced by their poor description of the area, and were thus using sources to provide them with the details they needed to craft the story.

10-22-2006, 08:44 AM	#7
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I can only conclude that whoever wrote Mark obviously knew that they weren't writing history and that they were writing an allegorical work. Mark's gospel is crafted from the "old testament" scriptures and presumably Philo, obviously the writer was aware that he was copying and crafting, etc. Did he intend the work to be taken as history? I'm not sure. either he was writing a story that was intended to be allegory, or he was writing with intent to deceive. Matthew and Luke, seem to have had intent to decieve. Obviously Matthew crafted many additonal elements from the old scriptures as well, but his work seems to be more crude and blatant. Luke, presumably also the author of Acts, was also writing fiction, but I'm not sure if he intended it to be taken as fact or not, but I think he did have this intent. The gospel of John, it seems, was origionally a gnostic gospel, which was later revised and changed into an anti-gnostic gospel. This is the conclusion of many researchers on this subject based on the earliest references to John, and the collections that fragments of John are found in. So, it seems that the origional author of John was perhaps writing allegorically, but the later revision had an intent to craft history. This business of Philo and Pilate, however has really strengthened my conviction that there was no historical basis for the Jesus character at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.