Ben C Smith

Lewis and Short:

hÄ•taerĪa, ae, f., = εταιÏ?ια,

I. a (religious) brotherhood, fraternity, Traj. ap. Plin. Ep. 10, 43, 1; id. ib. 10, 97, 7.

Note that this is a loanword from the Greek εταιÏ?ια or εταιÏ?εια, for which Liddell and Scott offer association, brotherhood, social group, political club, or comradeship, among other possibilities.

Ben.

rlogan

Interesting. This seems to create more problems than it solves. Rome was a polyglot of religions, unless I am confused. Possibly.

So this would go for Zoastrianism, Mithraism, and what not?

Vorkosigan

No, it would not be safer, because we know that the early Christian and associated texts were ruthlessly altered by later scribes, and that forgers produced a whole range of documents said to be from the original circle -- fake letters of Peter and Paul, etc. The correct attitude should be suspicion toward everything, especially that which legitimates the proto-orthodox point of view, and anything that seems "too pat."

That makes no sense at all. Had such a move existed, surely Josephus and Philo would have recorded it. Nor does it make sense that after nuking Judaism in 70, the authorities would have countenanced suggestions that they make a splinter group illegal. This is the kind of "too pat" thing I was talking about -- it stinks of later Christian anti-semitism. The spl;it between Judaism and Christianity is a second century phenomenon, as there were complaints about Christians in the synagogues at that date.

...in a letter that the Dutch radicals argued was a later forgery.

Vorkosigan

jgibson000

Philo never mentions the Pharisees, does he?. Should we conclude from this that they didn't exist?

Jeffrey

countjulian

He does mention the Theraputae and some other wierd groups (not to mention his Hellenism/Judaism combo was some pretty wacky smack), and from the purported nature of Christianity one would think that he would have had some interest in it, especially if Jesus was half as influential as the gospels and their modern supporters (including Jesus reconstructionists like Crossan) claim him to be.

rlogan

Josephus specifically discusses the "sects" of the Jews - and if Christianity had origins in the Jewish orbit, and had grown to the size some are suggesting here by the end of the 1st century then it would have been mentioned.

In particular, since Josephus visited Rome and there was supposedly this big time persecution with burning people into the night and having wild animals tear them apart then it is just inconceivable he would not even mention them.

jgibson000

There are lots of significant events of monumental proportions that went on in Rome that Jospehus doesn't mention. There were even some concerning Jews -- Claudius' expulsion of them, for instance. So if he really was interested in Roman Jewish relations and in documentiong that not all the Jews were the troublemakers that they thought they were, it too, by your criteria, is inconceivable that he does not mention this event. But he doesn't. Does this mean the expulsion didn't happen or that what's going on here is engagement in fallacy of the appeal to personal incredulity?

Neither Philo nor Josephus mention Hilllel and the Hillelite movement, though with Josephus being a Pharisee and intersetd in explaining who the Pharisees were, it is seems inconceivable that he wouldn't.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Interesting argument. Not only does it presume to know more about what was in Philos' mind and what his interests were than can be known, and engages in what is known as the fallacy of misleading vividness, but it is cut from the same cloth as the one used by creationists when they say that if there were as many dinosaurs around as you evolutions say there were, then we should have a lot more evidence for their existence than we do.

Jeffrey

countjulian

Apologists often bring Hillel and his movement up, and I have to say, I have grown quite interested with them without regard to Christian origins. What exactly are our sources on Hillel? Just the Talmud? How come his movement was so "under the radar?" What exactly were his future impacts on the world in general and Judaism in particular?

Toto

I have never heard of a creationist making this argument. The fossil evidence for dinosaurs is quite extensive, and creationists usually argue that dinosaurs were referred to in the Bible etc.

Arer you saying that we cannot know what Philo's interests were by surveying what he wrote about? That his writings do not provide any insight into his mind?

Although the silence in Philo by itself is not the best evidence for anything.