Malachi151

Do the research yourself. That's not the point of this thread. If you want to start a new thread to take up this tangent, then do so.

BTW, there is nothing controversion about this statement, its like saying that we know that Greeks knew the world was round. Its common knowledge, which you can find for yourself without effort.

andrewcriddle

It is clear that some 2nd century Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria knew Philo's works.

It is much less clear that 1st century Christian writers did so.

It is far from clear how well known outside Egypt Philo's works were before the late 2nd century.

It is not IMO prima-facie particularly likely that the author of Mark's gospel had read Philo.

Andrew Criddle

jgibson000

Um, why? It's your claim, not mine. The onus is on you, not me.

Forgive me for saying so, but I have to wonder if your directive to me to do your job is an admission on your part that you don't know of any scholarly research that backs up your claim. If so, it is certainly strange, given the authority and the certainty with which you asserted in the message that began this thread that we can take it as fact that Philo was known to, and used by, NT authors.

Well, now, this is interesting. Your claim that "We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo" is used by youas both the major premise and the ground of the argument you are trying to make in this thread.

But if your major premise is untrue, then the argument that you base on, and the conclusion that you derive from, this premise not only has little to commend it; it must regarded as both invalid and unsound.

So asking whether or not you can support your claim is hardly tangental to the matters in question. It is central to the discussion. It is what helps us to determine whether your argument has any merit and whether we can accept your primary claim and anything that follows from it as true.

Better tell that to the likes of Williamson, Hurst, Lane, Goodenough, and Sandmel, among others! Have you read what these people have had to say on the question of NT authors' knowldege of Philo? If so, can you tell me what they say on this matter?

But is it common knowledge? That's what we are trying to establish. So far you have done nothing to help us along the way to see that this is indeed the case -- which, BTW, is your job since this is your claim.

And even if it is "common knowledge", among whom is it such? Is it "common knowledge" among the particular people we'd have to expect it to be if what you say is true, namely, specialists in Philo and the NT?

If yes, I'd be grateful for the names of these specialists.

JG

Vorkosigan

There's a list of Philo references in antiquity here.

http://www.torreys.org/bible/instrumenta.htm

The first Xtian writer to mention Philo by name is Clement of Alexandria.

I do not know of any reason to think so.

Michael

Malachi151

I don't know of any reason NOT to think so. The ideas and themes in Mark bear a strong resemblence to the works of Philo, and indeed sections, such as the mocking story, appear to be plagarized from Philo.

It is actually not unlikely that Mark was written in Alexandria.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=1116&C=1228

The reality is that no one knows where the gospel came from, but its first uses were in Alexandria, and indeed there were likely two versions, an Alexanrian version and another version, which was used by Matthew and Luke.

As a side note, I find this statement interesting:

No "you" (the author) fool, it wasn't "the resurrection" (which never happened) that made it clear "who Jesus was", it was the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE!

Vorkosigan

Like what? Can you give me some ideas and themes in Mark that match Philo? The mocking story is generic, Malachi, and occurs all over the eastern Med. See this excellent article:

Robbins, Vernon K. 1992. The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis. In Segbroeck, F., Tuckett, C., Van Belle, G., Verheyden, J. eds. The Four Gospels: A Ferstschrift in Honor of Frans Neirynck. Leuven: University Press Online at Emory:
http://www.religion.emory.edu/facult...Ps22Mark15.pdf

How do you know the writer of Mark specifically sourced the text from Philo? What specific and unique links can you forge between the two that show that they know each other, and that they are not presenting two versions of a common mocking story?

That may be true, but even if the writer wrote in Alexandria, that is only circumstantial. Still need the unique language/parallels. It looks generic to me.

Michael

Malachi151

The mocking scene by Philo bears a much stronger resemblance than what he discussed here.

As already listed:

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

robto

It seems to me that the portrayal of Pilate in Mark is rather sympathetic ("What evil has he [Jesus] done?") and so is unlikely to be drawn from/influenced by Philo, who obviously detested the dude.

Malachi151

This is true, and a legitimate criticism.

The possibilities here are that:

1) Mark got his information about Pilate from Philo, but since Mark portrays the Jews as bad the the Romans as good (the Roman officer says that Jesus was the Son of God, etc.) he reverses the perspective.

2) Mark got his information about Pilate from his own personal knowledge of him (I deem this highly unlikely, if not impossible)

3) Mark got his information about Pilate from common knowledge and public discourse, just like a young person in America would about someone like Jimmy Carter, or whoever, that they simply hear various discussiosn about and know generally who they were.

4) Mark got his information about Pilate from some other written source. There are many options here, but of course the only contemporary source of information that existed on Pilate at the time of his writing the gospel that we are aware of today is Philo.

Based on the fact that it seems to me Mark likely read the works of Philo, based on other elements of his writing, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that Philo was his source for information about Pilate. It is interesting that he portrays Pilate the exact opposite as Philo portrays him, and he portrays the Jews as bad, he portrays Jesus as having surpased Moses, and his description of the transfiguration is similar to that of Philo's description of the death of Moses.

Now, regardless of any of those things, I think its clear that Philo's account of Pilate makes his lack of account of Jesus all the more striking.

jgibson000

It does? Can you give us specific examples of these "strong resemblances"? Are they formal and thematic only? Or do they extend to linguistic similarities as well? Do they actually appear in the Greek text of Philo?

Hmm. What's your basis for saying that Philo actually does all of the above? Have you yourself read Philo? Or are you relying on a secondary source for the claim that Philo actually does what you have listed him as doing? If the latter, what is this source?

And where specifically in the NT (in what books and at what chapter and verse in those books) do you find the parallels to what you say are the things Philo does?

More importantly, can you please cite the places in Philo where Philo reputedly does these things? It may very well be that when we look at Philo's description and exposition of these things -- assuming, of course, that he actually does do what you say he does -- that they are not as close in theme, form, content, or langage to anything in the NT that is an alleged parallel as you claim they are, let alone to justify the claim that Philo was the basis of the the alleged NT parallels.

And can you tell us whether it is "a fact" that Philo is the only writer who does the things you claim he does in the whole corpus of ancient Jewish writings?

You see, your claim the NT writers knew and used Philo, given the alleged (but as yet unsubstantiated) parallels between topoi found in the NT and topoi allegedly appearing in Philo, has merit if and only if the only place we find them in the whole of Jewish literature (apart from the NT) is in Philo. If we find them elsewhere, not to mention in Jewish writings other than those of Philo that the NT authors can be shown actually to have known (Test. 12 Patriarchs, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.), then your claim is hardly as strong as you seem to think it is. In fact, it would then only be a possibility, and not, as you assert, "a fact".


So, can you please tell us if you are certain that the themes you claim are found in Philo do not occur/appear anywhere else in ancient Jewish literature?

JG