mountainman

You have no evidence for Jewish therapeutae except for the EXPRESSLY CHURCH PRESERVED Philonic "VC" and blind dogmatic faith. Other people have made the argument that the Philonic "VC" may have been a later forgery. Do some homework for a change.

Toto

Here's the wiki editor response to Pete:

stephan huller

BTW I happen to have the Philo Concordance published by Brill. If I thought this was a serious discussion I could note the frequency of key words to help determine authorship. But this is a farce. There is no substance to this claim other than Pete for some ridiculously insane reason doesn't like what the text says.

stephan huller

And what for fucking reason can Pete give for his doubts? I have still yet to hear anything substantive. Give me some substantive reasons for doubting its authenticity. Not a bunch of links and graphs and appeals to 'forgery' and parody and all the usual stupidity.

mountainman

The WIKI article provides a reasonable starting place for discussion. It lists quite a number of separate issues to consider.



Bullshit. Do some fucking homework.

stephan huller

No, once again. Provide the forum with some basis for your 'doubts.' Something. Anything. A pattern of words. Something which doesn't seem to fit the pattern of Philonic authorship. You have to put together something. A sentence, a paragraph, an idea. You can't just want the text to go away.

But you are the one bringing the new understanding. Everyone accepts the text as Jewish. As noted above, provide even a semblance of an argument. Something substantial. Not just the desperate daydreams of an aging surfer.

mountainman

I have provided many times yourself and the forum with the points and issues of 'doubt' raised by the following WIKI article on the "VC".

Here they are again. I will number them ...

Pattern of issues AGAINST Philonic authorship

there are great dissimilarities between the fundamental conceptions of the author of the "De Vita Contemplativa" and those of Philo.

(1) The latter looks upon Greek culture and philosophy as allies, the former is hostile to Greek philosophy (see Siegfried in "Protestantische Kirchenzeitung," 1896, No.42).

(2) He repudiates a science that numbered among Its followers the sacred baud of the Pythagoreans, inspired men like Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno, Cleanthes, Heraclitus, and Plato, whom Philo prized ("Quod Omnis Probus," i., ii.; "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," 43; "De Providentia," ii. 42, 48, etc.).

(3) He considers the symposium a detestable, common drinking-bout. This can not be explained as a Stoic diatribe; for in this case Philo would not have repeated it.

(4) And Philo would have been the last to interpret the Platonic Eros in the vulgar way in which it is explained in the "De Vita Contemplativa," 7 (ii. 480), as he repeatedly uses the myth of double man allegorically in his interpretation of Scripture ("De Opificio Mundi," 24; "De Allegoriis Legum," ii. 24).

(5) It must furthermore be remembered that Philo in none of his other works mentions these colonies of allegorizing ascetics, in which he would have been highly interested had he known of them.



But pupils of Philo may subsequently have founded near Alexandria similar colonies that endeavored to realize his ideal of a pure life triumphing over the senses and passions; and they might also have been responsible for the one-sided development of certain of the master's principles.

While Philo desired to renounce the lusts of this world, he held fast to the scientific culture of Hellenism, which the author of this book denounces.

Although Philo liked to withdraw from the world in order to give himself up entirely to contemplation, and bitterly regretted the lack of such repose ("De Specialibus Legibus," 1 [ii. 299]), he did not abandon the work that was required of him by the welfare of his people.

Since I have many time provided this basis for my 'doubts' why are you asking for them again, and not addressing them?


A further doubt is



(6) the fact that the Christian regime of later centuries were the only ones responsible for the special preservation of "VC".

stephan huller

What is the source again?

stephan huller

I found it - http://books.google.com/books?id=R0g...phy%22&f=false It's from a hundred years ago and the author doesn't say its a fake. He has just come to some observations about the text while not going so far as to deny Philonic authorship.

stephan huller

Still the author says that the author was Jewish. Note:

"But pupils of Philo may subsequently have founded near Alexandria similar colonies that endeavored to realize his ideal of a pure life triumphing over the senses and passions; and they might also have been responsible for the one-sided development of certain of the master's principles."

No one else sees this difficulties but I would be happy to go through them. But a careful reading of the author's argument shows that the author of the Vita isn't just 'also' Jewish like Philo but 'even more Jewish' than Philo. So again, so what for your argument. But at least you cited a source.