aa5874

I am extremely delighted that you want to find out what Eusebius says about Philo's background because it will be exposed that you are NOT yet familiar with the writings of Philo.

Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel VIII In Hypothetica Philo DEFENDS the Jews, the Essenes, NOT the Theraputae.

In "Preparation for the Gospel" Eusebius showed that Philo Defended the Essenes as Jews--NEVER the Therapeutae.

Preparation for the Gospel VIII There is NOTHING at all about the Therapeutae in the "Apology for the Jews"--NOTHING at all about the Therapetae in the "Preparation for the Gospel".

stephan huller

So we agree that 'Philo the Jew' is Jewish?

:hysterical:

aa5874

I did not even realize that you may not have been sure that Philo was claimed to be a Jew.

By the way the OP is not about whether Philo is a Jew.


This is the question ----Who were the therapeutae in antiquity?

In the "Preparation for the Gospel" there is ZERO mention of the Therapeutae and in the "Apology for the Jews" Philo mentioned THOUSANDS of Essenes that lived in Judea.

Eusebius implied the Therapeutae were Christians in Egypt--Not Jews.

stephan huller

I feel like I am in a Monty Python skit. Again I ask, can we at least start by agreeing that 'Philo the Jew' was Jewish?

:hysterical:

mountainman

Always look on the bright side of life.


For the sake of the argument let's assume for the moment that Philo was Jewish.

What next?

You see the claim has already been made that the person who authored "VC" (the only testimony AFAIK in antiquity for a Jewish sect of therapeutae) may NOT have been Philo. That Philo was Jewish has no bearing on the nationality of an unknown "Pseudo-Philo".

What's more the fact that this "Pseudo-Philo" trashed the Hellenic culture does not imply Pseudo-Philo was Jewish.
Such a trashing might indicate that Pseudo-Philo may have been a 4th century Christian, to whom the Hellenes were heretics.

stephan huller

That fundamentally limits what's possible. For instance, one can be a 'Jewish philosopher' but not a 'Jewish pagan.' Thus if he is commending the Therapeutai-who-are-connected-to-the-Essaioi-who-are-Jewish the circle is complete. The outlook of the Contemplative Life is thoroughly negative with respect to paganism, demi-gods etc. This again to be expected from a Jewish author (I think Singer mistakes the 'politeness' of the early works with respect to the pagan neighbors of the Jews in Alexandria for a meaningful contrast with respect to the Vita). Look at the way Jews talk about Jesus when there are Christians around. 'Oh he was a well-meaning fellow etc." Bullshit. Jews have always 'had a thing' for Jesus and Christianity. But when in mixed company they have to pretend to be ecumenical.

The same thing was true with almost all ethnic groups when I was growing up in Canada. The shorthand reference to 'English Canadians' among Italian immigrants from the South was 'cakes' (or 'manga cakes' a sort of bastardized Anglo-Italism pointing to their strange dessert habits). Italians were polite to their 'masters' (the British flag still flew when many came over to Toronto, the largest Italian community outside of Italy incidentally). But they made fun of their habits. The same thing happens in other communities in America I am just not as intimately familiar with them.

The point is that with Philo, once his Jewishness is established this - when coupled with the Jewishness of the Essaioi who are in turn liked with both the term therapeutai and the group of the same name - we find that there is nowhere else to run. We're boxed into thinking in terms of a Jewish philosophical sect.

stephan huller

I've also been thinking about why Philo goes through periods of referencing people and things 'Jewish' but then also avoids using the terminology. My guess is that it has something to do with contemporary unrest in Alexandria. Also we have to ask what prompted the treatise on the Contemplative Life in the first place. It is true that in other treatises he makes reference to Jewish Essenes living everywhere in the world and who are 'therapeutai' (worshipers of God). In the Contemplative Life he goes out of his way to reference a group who are now called the Therapeutai and who are somehow distinct from the Essaioi.

Here is the Brill page on the Therapeutai (if it's Brill you know it is good) http://www.encquran.brill.nl/entries...210190?s.num=7

The text is interesting because - as Singer notes - the tone is hostile to Egyptian religion but nevertheless the sect is identified by a name which is associated with Egyptian and other pagan religions. How is this best to be explained? Neither therapeutai or any related terms is ever used in the LXX. Could it be that Philo invented the name 'Therapeutai' to distinguish them from the Essenes? In other words, are they really Essenes but - perhaps owing to a negative connotation with the group (i.e. the group did something in Egypt or Alexandria which offended the authorities - he distinguished them as being 'something else'? It is possible. Look at Eusebius:

aa5874

This is most astonishing. You have now gone 'full circle'. You are now admitting that you really did NOT know what you were talking about from the start.

It is clear that Philo wrote SEPARATE books about the Essenes and the Therapeutae.

And in his books 'about the Essenes he NEVER EVER even once referred to the Therapeutae.

In Philo's "Apology for the Jews" and "All Good Men are Free" it is as if the Therapeatau NEVER existed.

Philo wrote extensively about the Essenes and made sure to claim that they were Jews or of Jewish origin--not so with the Therapeutae.

Philo wrote a Separate book to deal with the Therapeutae.

Apologetic sources seem to put forward the notion that the Therapeutae were Christians in Egypt--NOT the Essenes.

Chili

Not as part of the argument, but to make a distinction here is that Essenes were Jew who had completed their purification stage as true Nazorean in Galilee, and so were no longer Jew in the freedom they had found in their deliverance from the bondage of slavery and sin.

It is thus that they should not be seen as Therapeutae who have not yet, and I dare say never will, completed their Galilean stage as holy roller now and forever after (and sooner or later will sing patient endurance songs as they get older).

To this end can it be said that Philo denied them as Jew, as if "called out of Egypt," who only made a pitstop in Nazareth so they can be called a Nazarite, but actually were not. See Matthew on this where his Jesus also was called out of Egypt and never became an Essene but Galilean he remained.

stephan huller

Having mentioned the Essenes, who in all respects selected for their admiration and for their especial adoption the practical course of life, and who excel in all, or what perhaps may be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say, in most of its parts, I will now proceed, in the regular order of my subject, to speak of those who have embraced the speculative life, ... they are called therapeutae and therapeutrides,

The question then becomes what is Philo meaning when he says that he has just said that "may perhaps be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say" with respect to the Essenes. My interpretation is that 'they have not excelled in all (virtues)" but only 'part' - implying a slight criticism of the group.