Iasion

Greetings all,

Finally having Philo on disk, I did a quick search for use of "crucified" in his work. There are three passages which talk about crucifixion amongst the Jews without a mention of Jesus - another point arguing for a non-historical Jesus.


But the most notable use is this comment :


Consider the use of classic dichotomy - soul vs body :[*]the souls that love the body...[*]the souls depend on dead things,[*]like persons crucified (on a cross),[*](the souls) attached to corruptible matter

The plain meaning of this allegory is that the soul is "attached" to the body.

This "attachment" is likened to being "crucified"

The "cross" is used as a metaphor for the body.

Consider this later comment from Clement Alex. The Miscellanies :
The analogy of the soul being "nailed" to the body makes it clear that the body is the cross.


The issue this leads to is what Paul was talking about when he uses keys words and phrases like "Iesous Christos", the "cross" and being "crucified".

My suggestion to the puzzle, based on these clues and more, leads to something like this :[*] Iesous Christos = the immortal soul[*] the cross = the body[*] crucifixion = the incarnation of the divine soul, the attractions of lusts of the flesh


Reading Paul with these ideas in mind makes more sense to me than any alleged historical drama.


Quentin David Jones

Iasion

For reference, here are the quotes from Philo :

Flaccus -
Flaccus -
On Providence, fragment II -
On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile : -
Philo's views are relevant to our understanding of Paul, who was a contemporary, also a Jew, and who wrote about many of the same issues.

I suggest Philo's usages support the idea that the "cross" refers to the human body.


Also,
Philo could hardly have written those passages about Jews being crucified and scourged etc. without mentioning a word about the crucifixion of Jesus - if it had actually recently occured (can someone give any firm dates on when these books were written?)

This seems like reasonably strong further evidence that the Gospel events were not historical.

Quentin David Jones

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Quentin,

I am glad that someone found the online Philo to be of some use. Here it is for everyone else who may not yet know about it:

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/</a>

Overall, I think it is a good idea to attempt to find analogues for the expressions of Paul in ancient literature, and so I commend your effort. Have you tried searching Perseus? You may find more grist for the mill that way.

While I think that Philo may be relevant to exegesis of Paul, you bring up another issue when you write:

Philo could hardly have written those passages about Jews being crucified and scourged etc. without mentioning a word about the crucifixion of Jesus - if it had actually recently occured

This would be true if there were a global darkness and saints strolled through the city of Jerusalem. This would not necessarily be true if Jesus was no more significant than the two bandits pinned up along with him and if Jesus were your average prophet or magician. Philo also neglects to mention John the Baptist and Hanina ben Dosa, but this doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Philo, the well-to-do exegete and philosopher of Alexandria, does not demonstrate a great interest in the lower class peoples of Palestine.

The only silence from an extant ancient non-Christian writer that I would find probative with regards to the existence of Jesus is that of Josephus. Do you have any ideas for arguments, additional to the ones stated in my current essay, or modified to be improved in some way, that might show the passages in 18.3.3 or 20.9.1 to be inauthentic? This might help in my discussion with Layman.

Quentin writes: (can someone give any firm dates on when these books were written?)

Roughly, off the top of my head, the first half of the first century. The Loeb edition by F. H. Colson and the G. H. Whitaker should have some introductory material to this effect. I will see what they have to say about dating. I will be going to the university library on Saturday. Please let me know about all the passages in Philo in which you are interested, and I will look up the Greek.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Iason --

Does Philo's failure to discuss Christianity count against its existence prior to the 30s?

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

I have seen this idea posted in other places. Question, where in the NT does it say that "global darkness" occurred at the time of the death of Christ? I think you are reading too much into the relevant passages.

Regards,

Finch

Peter Kirby

Atticus writes: I have seen this idea posted in other places. Question, where in the NT does it say that "global darkness" occurred at the time of the death of Christ? I think you are reading too much into the relevant passages.

Where did I say that the New Testament says that "global darkness" occured at the time of the death of Christ? My comment makes sense merely if some Christians believe that a global darkness occured, even if others would like to interpret the relevant passages in another way such as a local darkness. So, maybe you read too much into my comment.

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings all,

Peter:
Thank you
I am working my way through Perseus now - so far I see nothing like the allegorical use in Philo, which I think is an important key to understanding Paul's uses.


True,
but if he was such a minor figure that he slipped below Philo's radar, then he bears no resemblance to the Gospel Jesus.

Any such "Jesus", if he existed as a figure totally different to the Gospels stories, can hardly be called the "real Jesus" at all.

That is the sense in which I argue there was NO real Jesus in history - sure, there must have been MANY figures SOMEWHAT like Jesus in those days - but the ORIGINATING impulse for Christianity did not, in my view, start with any person Jesus of Nazareth at all. Any finding of the "real Jesus" afterwards is just wishful retro-fitting.

I argue that Paul's Iesous Christos means the immortal image of the Godhead which ensouls all humans - perhaps somewhat like an Platonic Idea of the divine man which is each humans "spark" of life.

So, let me suggest an interpretation of Paul on these crucial issues.

I have already said that it appears that the Iesous Christos is "crucified" in each of us, by ensouling or incarnating in our lives.

And, I have noted elsewhere that the "soul" was sometimes seen (e.g. Philo) as a higher being from a higher plane, which "dies" in our life - or as Cicero said "we live their death, they live at our death" IIRC.

Now, Paul could easily have used the word "die" - that the soul "Iesous Christos" dies inside us, but he chose NOT to, instead using the word "crucify".

What is the difference between being killed and being crucified?

The answer is : sometimes one SURVIVES crucifixion - the greatest trial a man could suffer, the most horrible - almost worse than death because of the suffering involved.

In short, when Paul uses the word "crucify" - I think he means something like :[*] to be DEADENED (or weakened, emasculated, limited, bound, crushed, handicapped) possibly temporarily

this fits Paul's usages quite well :

"But far be it from me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified (deadened) to me, and I to the world."

"Those who belong to Christ have crucified (deadened) the flesh with its passions and lusts. "

To preach "Christ crucified" possibly means to preach that we all have a image of the Godhead "inside" us as our spark of life, our immortal soul - such an idea is both simple enough and subtle enough to attract the seekers of the day.

Sadly, Paul's use of the word "cross" is still extremely opaque to me.

You mentioned looking up the Greek - the only question I would have is what word Philo uses for "the cross" - the word for "crucify" has no surprises any more?


Why do you think Paul and Philo don't seem to know each other? I would have thought they were rather similar characters - educated Jews arguing ways to rationalise Jewish with pagan ideas.

Do we really know if Philo spent much time in Jerusalem? he wrote a fair bit about activities there...

Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings,

Vork:
trick question?

Traditionally there was no Christianity before the 30s.

In practice, I think proto-Christianity DID exist before the 30s - in the form of various mysteries schools and cults which focussed on a Christos theme of some sort - such minor cults amongst a myriad other sects could easily pass un-noticed by Philo.

Also, I note that David Doleshal has argued that there was a cult of Iasius (minor greek figure, rather similar story to Jesus) in Rome at those times, perhaps part of the proto-Christian matrix.

Do you think there was Christianity before the 30s?

Quentin David Jones

Vorkosigan

No. I believe that there was some proto-Christianity, called the Church of God or similar, existing prior to the 30s. Paul seems to be working with a movement that is already well established, and the references in 1 Clement tend to suggest that by the 60s, the Churches had been around long enough for the leadership to change hands a couple of times. That is consistent with an origin in the 30s as well, though. "Christianity" developed over the second half of the first century as the myth matured and the stories were fleshed out.

I have not yet made up my mind to what extent Jesus is an invention/discovery of the mid-century, or whether the proto-Church also revered a savior figure who had been crucified. In other words, did Paul hijack an existing movement and announce his discovery of Jesus in the Jewish scriptures, or was he just a particularly independent and fervent member of a growing cult?

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Iasion,
I think you have put forward a very interesting theory on Philo & Clement on crucifixion and the cross. I would like to see how you reconcile these with Paul's writings specifically kata sarka and "born of (virgin)woman".
You interpretaion is as follows:

• Iesous Christos = the immortal soul
• the cross = the body
• crucifixion = the incarnation of the divine soul, the attractions of lusts of the flesh

According to this interpretation:

• Is it a coincidence that one Mary was a virgin while the other was a prostitute? Or does the contrast have a significance?
• Who is pontius pilate? - does his name have any meaning that is reflecting his role?
• Who is the virgin Mary?
• Who are the sanhedrin?
• Since the crucifixion is the incarnation, what causes this incarnation and how does it come about?
• If the cross is the body, why did Jesus leave/ resurrect with it and not leave it behind? Is the immortal soul forever nailed to the body?

I think its important that your "theory" or interpretation takes the factors above into account.
I would like to know whether it does and whether you think it should.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>