Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-16-2003, 12:42 PM

This is a revised version of this thead on the origins of the Passion Narrative. I am going to ask the Moderators to keep this on topic, and delete or move any responses that try to veer off into the historical Jesus in general, or pagan parallels to Jesus, or which reprint school papers on mythology. I want to confine this to the literary evidence of the influence of Philo�s Against Flaccus on the Passion Narrative in the gospels.

Harold Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, finds 24 (or more, depending on how you count them) parallels between Philo�s Against Flaccus and the gospels Passion Narrative. Is this mere coincidence, or does this show some literary borrowing?

A few years ago, Dennis MacDonald published a book that tried to show some literary influences of Homer on Mark (reviewed here by Richard Carrier.) MacDonald did not claim to be able to explain the entire Gospel as derived from Homer, and the reception of his book was mixed, but I believe that he did manage to show that the Gospel of Mark shows evidence of Homeric influence.

Leidner does not discuss the criteria used by MacDonald, but I will go through them to test his hypothesis. I think that Leidner has made a stronger case for the literary dependence of the Passion Narrative on Philo than MacDonald showed for Homer.

Ted Weeden in his post on CrossTalk Re: Two Jesuses: the Provocative Parallels gives a useful outline of the issues, discussing the parallels between the Jesus of the Gospels and Josephus� story of Jesus son of Ananias:

Quote:

The parallelism which appears to exist between the Markan story of Jesus and Josephus' literary rendition of the story of Jesus, son of Ananias, like other ancient texts of the Hellenistic period which exhibit evidence of parallelism, cannot be dismissed so easily as pure coincidence. In the Greco-Roman world where there appears to be some evidence of parallelism between two writings, such parallelism would be interpreted not as coincidental or accidental but more likely as an indication on the part of one author to imitate intentionally the work of another. Dennis MacDonald, in his Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark , points out that a guiding principle of Greco-Roman literary creativity and craft was MIMESIS*, the widely followed practice of an author imitating another highly revered and often imitated author (4). Imitation was so important as an applied skill in literary creativity and craftspersonship that, as Teresa Morgan observes (Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds), in Greco-Roman education, after memory, imitation was considered the most important faculty for a student to develop and master. She reports that developing this faculty of imitation was stressed at every stage of a student's learning. In the initial stages of the student's education a student in a Greco-Roman classroom was taught to slavishly imitate his/her teacher. In more advanced stages, a student was taught how to imitate those the teacher thought were worthy of imitation, such as Homer and the like (see 245f., 251-253). Finally, if a person in the Greco-Roman world aspired to be an accomplished and successful writer that person had to be able to demonstrate the ability to imitate, with sophistication, ancient revered writers by turning and transforming the revered writers' hypotext imaginatively into the person's own creative hypertext (see MacDonald, 6).

. . .
[quoting from MacDonald]
"Texts discussing rhetorical imitations frequently mention the practice of occulting or disguising one's reliance on a model, for servile imitation could lead to charges of boorish pedantry and even of plagiarism. These disguises included altering the vocabulary, varying the order, length, and structure of sentences, improving the content, and generating a series of formal transformations. Although students usually imitated a single work, the experienced author borrowed from many...." (5) "According to Seneca, such apian authors [skilled in drawing the best from other authors] should 'blend those several flavours into one delicious compound that, even though it betrays its origin, yet it nevertheless is clearly a different thing from that whence it came.' One achieves the height of imitation, however, when 'the true copy stamps its own form upon all the features which it has drawn from what we may call the original' so that 'it is impossible for it to be seen who is being imitated'" (6; quoted from Seneca Epistle 84. 3-5 and 8-9.).

Consequently, unusual parallelism, commonality and similarities between literary works may suggest to us in the post-modern world mere accident or coincidence. But in the Greco-Roman world a skilled reader would suspect imitation before coincidence, and likely be right, that what was at hand was the respected and expected imitation of one author by another, the text of the former serving as the hypotext for the development of the hypertext of the latter. In view of the appearance, at least, of the practice of *MIMESIS* behind the parallelism of the two Jesus stories, I do not think one, then, should chalk up the similarities between the two Jesus stories to mere coincidence. I do not think that explaining the parallelism which exists between the two stories as a matter of coincidence adequately accounts for the narrative features that stories share in common. Rather imitation, in my judgement, appears to be what drives the parallelism which exists between the two "Jesus" stories.

MacDonald uses 6 criteria to discern mimesis:

Quote:

Criterion of Accessibility

This criterion "assesses the likeliness that the author had access to the hypotext.. The more widespread the proposed target of imitation, the stronger the case for imitation.... Many stories in Mark with parallels in Homeric epic were commonplace in Greek culture. Homer was in the air that Mark's readers breathed" (8).

=> Philo lived c. 20BCE -50CE. He wrote before the gospels are generally assumed to have been written, in the same language that they were written in, in the Roman Empire. It would be unusual if the gospel writers or editors did not have access to his work.

Leider develops a theory that the Passion Narratives must have been a later addition to the basic gospel story. I do not want to go into this part of his theory now, in order to focus the issue, since I do not think that his case depends on an extra-late dating of the Gospels.

Quote:

Criterion of Analogy

This criterion "seeks to place the proposed Homeric parallels within a tradition of imitation of the same model. The more often ancient authors imitated a particular story, characterization, or plot element, the more likely the case that Mark did too" (9).

= > We do not have other classical examples of the mimesis of Philo�s work that I know of. But Philo has not been studied as much as Josephus

Quote:

Criterion of Density

This criterion "pertains to the volume of contacts between two texts. Density is determined by bulk, not by count; parallels between two texts may be numerous but trivial, such as 'he said,' 'they went,' 'she replied.' Not even a legion of parallels would demonstrate imitation. On the other hand, as few as two or three weighty similarities may suffice.

= > The distinctive mockery scene is dense with parallels by itself. In addition, Leidner finds 23 other points of coincidence.

Quote:

Criterion of Order

This criterion "is related to density insofar as it assesses the sequence of the parallels. The more often two texts share content in the same order, the stronger the case for literary dependence" (8).

= > The Passion Narrative does not preserve Philo�s order.

Quote:

Criterion of Distinctiveness

"Occasionally two texts contain distinguishing characteristics, such as peculiar characterizations, or a sudden, unexpected change of venue, or an unusual word or phrase. Some interpreters consider this the best test of dependence, 'where a rare word of expression in one passage picks up a corresponding rarity in a predecessor passage, serving thus as an unequivocal marker or allusion.' [quoting Hinds, 25]. Frequently these rarities are flags for readers to compare the imitating texts with their models" {reference nt. 35L" Many philologians favor this criterion above all others. See, for example, Jeffrey Wills, Repetition in Latin Poetry:Figures of Allusions, ...15-41; and Kathleen Morgan, Ovid's Art of Imitation: Propertius in the Amores...3-4"}.

= > Unfortunately, I do not read Greek, so I will not be able to evaluate this fully.

Quote:

Criterion of Interpretability, or Intelligibility

"The Capacity of the proposed hypotext to make sense of the hypertext. This may include the solution to a peculiar problem that has eluded other explanations. It also may include emulation, or transvaluation. Can one understand why the author targeted the particular antecedent and how she transformed it to serve her ends? Marcan imitations frequently satisfy this criterion by exalting Jesus at the expense of the vices or weaknesses of the heroes in their models" (9).

= > This is where Leidner�s analogies shine. He can explain many details that are embarrassing, discordant, or just senseless by showing how they made sense in Philo�s narrative.

So now for some details:

The Mockery

Philo

Quote:

they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a scepter they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;

and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;

Gospels

Quote:

Matthew 27: 28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29 and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. 30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again.

Mark 15:17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.

Luke:10 The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. 12 That day Herod and Pilate became friends--before this they had been enemies.

The victim is stripped naked or starts out that way, and is costumed with a crown of reed /thorns, robe, and sceptre; saluted in a mock ceremony, hailed with the title of King
-
Luke adds the detail of the visiting Herodian King, visiting the city outside his jurisdiction with a bodyguard of soldiers, who was at odds with the Roman ruler. Leidner asks where the detail of Herod being an enemy of Pilate came from, if not from Philo?

Thus there is density of references, some of which make little sense without the original story of Philo before us. Why did the soldiers both beat and make mock homage to Jesus?

Carabas / Barabbas and envy

The character of Barabbas, the criminal who is freed by Pilate, is a mystery in the Gospels. But the names Carabbas and Barabbas differ by only a stroke in Aramaic; the possibility of confusion has been alluded to in the Jewish Encyclopedia article "Barabbas".

Quote:

Mark 15: 6 Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9 "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

[Note: MacDonald finds this scene to be based on the competition between Odysseus and a beggar. Jesus and Barabbas. As noted above, a good classical writer could weave several sources into the narrative.]

Leidner notes that Philo ascribed the anti-Jewish actions of the Alexandrian mob to �envy�. But the gospels give us no reason for thinking that the Jewish mob or the priests would �envy� a traveling wisdom teacher with no material goods who was too obscure to show up in the standard secular histories. �Envy� is a smoking gun, showing the reliance on Philo�s history.

The crucifixion on a holiday

The idea of releasing a prisoner on the Feast of Passover has always puzzled scholars, because there is no such recorded practice. But Philo notes that the Jews of Alexandria were crucified on Aug 31, which had been set aside as the emperor�s birthday, when leniency would be expected.

Philo states: �. . if the elders had committed a host of crimes, Flaccus ought to have postponed the punishments out of respect for the season. . . Instead, he made the celebrations an occasion for illegality, and for punishing those who did no wrong, whom he could have punished at a later time if he wished. But he hurried and pressed on the matter to conciliate the mob, who were opposed to the Jews. . .

�I have known cases where on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been crucified have been taken down and the bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought proper to give them burial and allow the customary rites. But Flaccus gave no order to take down those who had died on the cross. . �

Parallels between Judas and Flaccus

Both came from another area to manage the funds. Leidner asks why a wandering mendicant band like Jesus� group needs a treasurer? And if so, why did he have to come from the other end of the country? Whereas Flaccus was sent in by Rome to fill a governmental function. Philo is reporting history, the Gospels had to invent and improvise the Judas figure.

The betrayal.

After an initial period of good government, Flaccus proceeded to betray the Alexandrian Jews after Roman politics put him in a tight spot and he feared for his life. Judas, on the other hand, has no clear motive for betraying Jesus.

The cleansing of the temple

The Greeks of Alexandria broke into the Jewish Synagogues and erected statues of the mad Emperor, Caligula, and worshipped them. This forced the Jews to evict the worshippers and cleanse their worship places; but that act put them in bad with the authorities.

The cleansing of the Temple is ahistorical. It would be physically impossible for any one man to clear the Temple; and if it had happened, Leidner argues that Josephus would surely have noticed and reported it. The picture that we have from the gospels fits more the image of a small synagogue in Alexandria than the action that would be required to cleanse the Jerusalem Temple.

This event also shows Homeric influences, to the scene where Odysseus throws out Penelope�s suitors.

The Sourging

Philo describes how the elderly Jewish leaders were lacerated with a scourge that should have been used for common criminals. (One of the privileges that the Jews had was the right to be beated by a flat blade rather than the scourge.)

The Gospels disagree on the role of the scourging. In Matthew and Mark, it is preliminary to the crucifixion. In Luke, it is a threat that is not carried out when crucifixion is substituted. In John it is carried out, with an indication that it would be the final penalty, but the intervention of the mob blocks Pilate�s plan to release Jesus, much like Flaccus yielding to the mob and proceeding to crucify the Jews.

Crucifixion at the 3rd hour

Philo: �The first spectacle lasted until the third or fourth hour. . "

Mark: �And it was the third hour and they executed him.�

Leidner: Mark�s 3rd hour corresponds to 9 am in the Greco-Roman time scheme. �Given the crowded events set down in his gospel � a morning trial before the Sanhedrin, a first hearing before Pilate, a transfer of the case to Herod Antipas, a second hearing before Pilate, the costume and mockery scene and the procession to Golgotha, placed outside the city walls � then a crucifixion at nine in the morning becomes so improbable that a gospel writer would not think to put it down on his own initiative. The likelihood is that Mark found it in his source, namely Philo.�

The other Gospel writers reject the third hour and make other guesses, further indicating a lack of historical witness to this event.

The Last Supper

Leidner has identified Flaccus as a model for Judas, but now he sees Flaccus as a model for Jesus in his last days. Leider: "There has always been an ambiguity, a covert linkage, between Judas and Christ. These two alone wager their lives on the outcome while the others have a lesser role. In some variant gospels put out by heretical sects, it is Judas who goes to the cross instead of Christ. . . Philo, caught up in his hatred for [Flaccus], is unaware that in the end he has created a dramatic and, at the end, a pitiable figure."

The parallels:

a small gathering involving close companions
described as a feast [Passover for Jesus; Feast of the Tabernacles for Flaccus]
held in the home of a third party
a spy mission
an arrest that takes place just as the Victim raises a glass of wine; at that moment he foresees his own death, with the wine linked to the impending death
the arrest is made by soldiers armed with swords
the companions / disciples are terrified and all desert him
he is led away under arrest, and it is stated with finality that this will be his last supper on earth where he will be at peace.

These elements are a bit jumbled, and there are many dissimilarities. Jesus is not arrested as he drinks the wine, although the wine does play a symbolic role in t; but I accept the evidence that the Eucharist predates the gospels (and probably Christianity.) Flaccus' companions want to desert him, but the doors are blocked.

Still, there is a remarkable coincidence of a last supper, the armed soldiers who arrest Flaccus, and the dramatic way Flaccus "realizes his fate":

Quote:

But when Bassus had made his way into the midst, the moment that he saw him he became dumb with amazement and consternation, and wishing to rise up he saw the guards all round him, and then he perceived his fate, even before he heard what Gaius wanted with him, and what commands had been given to those who had come, and what he was about to endure, for the mind of man is very prompt at perceiving at once all those particulars which take a long time to happen, and at hearing them all together.

(this and other quotes are from here.

Jesus, of course, being a superior being, realizes his fate well before confronted by the soldiers. This sort of transmutation of the text to show the superiority of Jesus is a common devise in mimesis.

The salvation / resurrection of the Savior or community

The Jews hear of the arrest of Flaccus, their betrayer:

Quote:

And when they heard of the arrest that had taken place, and that Flaccus was now within the toils, stretching up their hands to heaven, they sang a hymn, and began a song of praise to God, who presides over all the affairs of men, saying, "We are not delighted, O Master, at the punishment of our enemy, being taught by the sacred laws to submit to all the vicissitudes of human life, but we justly give thanks to thee, who hast had mercy and compassion upon us, and who hast thus relieved our continual and incessant oppressions." (122) And when they had spent the whole night in hymns and songs, they poured out through the gates at the earliest dawn, and hastened to the nearest point of the shore, for they had been deprived of their usual places for prayer, and standing in a clear and open space, they cried out, (123) "O most mighty King of all mortal and immortal beings, we have come to offer thanks unto thee, to invoke earth and sea, and the air and the heaven, and all the parts of the universe, and the whole world in which alone we dwell, being driven out by men and robbed of everything else in the world, and being deprived of our city, and of all the buildings both private and public within the city, and being made houseless and homeless by the treachery of our governor, the only men in the world who are so treated. (124) You suggest to us favourable hopes of the setting straight of what is left to us, beginning to consent to our prayers, inasmuch as you have on a sudden thrown down the common enemy of our nation, the author and cause of all our calamities, exulting in pride, and trusting that he would gain credit by such means, before he was removed to a distance from us, in order that those who were evilly afflicted might not feel their joy impaired by learning it only by report, but you have chastised him while he was so near, almost as we may say before the eyes of those whom he oppressed, in order to give us a more distinct perception of the end which has fallen upon him in a short time beyond our hopes."

Acts has an analogy to the dawn Psalm (Leidner says several lines are almost verbatim, but the translations here may obscure that) but transferred to the disciples in Jerusalem after Peter and John were released:

Acts 4: 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.

27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

An unfair trial with false testimony

Flaccus is brought to Rome to face trial before Caesar, and faces false testimony from two Greek Alexandrians (is this also where the author of Acts gets the idea to send Paul to Rome for trial? The description of the Jews in Acts 17:5 resembles the description of the turncoats who testified against Flaccus.)

The Via Dolorosa

Flaccus was banished to an island, where he knew that he would be followed by killers. Leidner compares his travel to that island to the Via Dolorosa:

Quote:

Then he was sent back again on the road from Rome to Brund[i]sium, a journey which he had taken a few years before, at the time when he was appointed governor of Egypt and the adjacent country of Libya, in order that the cities which had then seen him exulting and behaving with great insolence in the hour of his prosperity, might now again behold him full of dishonour.

Leidner notes that the description of Flaccus' sea voyage mirrors Paul's journey (and probably a thousand others) and that the description of Flaccus on the island sounds like the Gadarene lunatic:

Quote:

and he have himself up to such violence of grief, that he was in no respect different from a maniac, and leaped about, and ran to and fro, and clapped his hands, and smote his thighs, and threw himself upon the ground, and kept continually crying out, (163) "I am Flaccus! who but a little while ago was the governor of the mighty city, of the populous city of Alexandria! the governor of that most fertile of all countries, Egypt!

Quote:

Mark 5: 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. . . 10 "My name is Legion," he replied

By itself, this would be a stretch, but in the context of other parallels, it may provide a clue to the source of this passage.

The Garden Scene

Flaccus bought a small plot of land and spent time there in solitude. One day at midnight he came out of his shelter and in a mystical frenzy, turned his eyes to the heavens and the stars confessed his sins. "And he was continually giving way to dread and to apprehension, and shaking with fear in every limb and every portion of his body, and his whole soul was trembling with terror and quivering with palpitation and agitation, as if nothing in the world could possibly be a comfort to the man now that he was deprived of all favourable hopes"

This compares to Luke 22: "44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground."

Leidner sees this as a remarkable blending of the rules of Jesus and Judas � the despair and abandonment and loneliness of Jesus in the garden, and the confession of Judas.

But first Leidner explains what is going on here. In the Greek theater, the villain was required to go center stage in the last scene and confess his guilt to the audience. This was known as the "palinode," and Philo supplies one for Flaccus (obviously his own invention, since he wasn't there on the island.) This provides an explanation of why the gospels have Judas confessing � it was required by the dramatic form.

{b]The death of Judas[/b]

Flaccus:

Quote:

he was in consequence mutilated and cut about the hands, and feet, and head, and breast, and sides, so that he was mangled like a victim, and thus he fell, justice righteously inflicting on his own body wounds equal in number to the murders of the Jews whom he had unlawfully put to death. (190) And the whole place flowed with blood which was shed from his numerous veins, which were cut in every part of his body, and which poured forth blood as from a fountain.

Judas:

[quote]Acts 1:18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Matthew supplies a variant mode of death, hanging himself, based on the OT model of Ahitophel, who sought to betray David (2 Sam 17:23)

The mere fact that two gospels use different sources to construct this event should show that it is entirely fictional.

Vorkosigan · 05-16-2003, 03:33 PM

Great post! Thanks for all the work you put into it.

I'm glad I spend the money on this book. Can't wait to read it.

Very instructive.

Quote:

The mere fact that two gospels use different sources to construct this event should show that it is entirely fictional.

C'mon. You're not gonna win that easily.....

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon · 05-16-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Harold Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, finds 24 (or more, depending on how you count them) parallels between Philo�s Against Flaccus and the gospels Passion Narrative. Is this mere coincidence, or does this show some literary borrowing?

Co-incidence. And none of them particularly impressive. You've probably seen things like Acharya's list of similarities between the sun and Jesus, as well as my list of UFO similarities in the gospels - I won't go into them again, but I still see no reason why I should grant greater credence to Leidner's points.

To go through each point will take a while, and I may do so later.

But let's put another spin on it. You quoted:

Quote:

"According to Seneca, such apian authors [skilled in drawing the best from other authors] should 'blend those several flavours into one delicious compound that, even though it betrays its origin, yet it nevertheless is clearly a different thing from that whence it came.'"

Now, the events detailed in Philo happened in 38 CE, so Philo was writing after that, possibly as late as 50 CE.

If there were a historical Jesus, He died between 26 CE and 36 CE. We know from St Paul that there were Christian communities outside Jerusalem quite early (Damascus), and that in fact there were communities in Rome herself by around 60 CE.

The point is: Philo could have heard about the PN as an oral account from Christians, and incorporated it into his descriptions of the events of Flaccus. At that stage, the theological aspects to the Jesus story hadn't been worked out, so Jesus would have appeared to Philo as just another failed Messiah - but still worthy of incorporating into his account of events in Alexandria.

Now remember, I don't have to explain *why* he'd do that, I just need to point out:
(1) that the Passion events happened before the Flaccus events,
(2) the amazing number of parallels between the two events,
(3) a skilled author would blend several sources into one delicious compound that, even though it betrays its origin, yet it nevertheless is clearly a different thing from that whence it came.

What do you think? Is Philo's writings evidence for a historical PN?

Toto · 05-16-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Co-incidence. . .

But let's put another spin on it. You quoted:

Now, the events detailed in Philo happened in 38 CE, so Philo was writing after that, possibly as late as 50 CE.

If there were a historical Jesus, He died between 26 CE and 36 CE. We know from St Paul that there were Christian communities outside Jerusalem quite early (Damascus), and that in fact there were communities in Rome herself by around 60 CE.

The point is: Philo could have heard about the PN as an oral account from Christians, and incorporated it into his descriptions of the events of Flaccus. At that stage, the theological aspects to the Jesus story hadn't been worked out, so Jesus would have appeared to Philo as just another failed Messiah - but still worthy of incorporating into his account of events in Alexandria.

Now remember, I don't have to explain *why* he'd do that, I just need to point out:
(1) that the Passion events happened before the Flaccus events,
(2) the amazing number of parallels between the two events,
(3) a skilled author would blend several sources into one delicious compound that, even though it betrays its origin, yet it nevertheless is clearly a different thing from that whence it came.

What do you think? Is Philo's writings evidence for a historical PN?

There's a big problem with your idea that Philo may have borrowed details. Philo's narrative makes a lot of sense. The elements from his story that the gospels borrow are mixed in, but do not necessarily make sense in their gospel context. Why does Pilate think that Jesus' opponents are motivated by envy? Why does Judas betray Jesus and then quickly confess? Those elements are part of a coherent narrative in Philo's story, but stick out like unexplained sore thumbs in the gospels. You will have to find a convincing explanation for those sore thumbs to argue that Philo borrowed from the gospels.

Besides that, there is absolutely no evidence that the Passion Narrative existed in its present form when Philo was writing (he is estimated to have written Against Flaccus in 42 CE and died 45-50 CE).

You may claim that Jesus lived about 30 CE, but your only evidence for that is the gospels, and we have no mention anywhere of the gospels before about 140 CE. There may have been Christians before that time, but you have not explained how Philo would have met them. Christian historians speculate that after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Christians there spread around the empire as refugees, taking their religion with them. That's too late for Philo. You would also need to explain why he (and every other writer of the time) did not mention them.

The historical value of Paul's letters is questionable. There has been ample opportunity to interpolate and forge them; even so, Paul does not refer to Christians, but to followers of The Way. We don't know that these early followers of the Way thought of Jesus as a human who lived recently. If Paul is correct, there were different varieties of "Jesus" being preached, so the mere existence of Christians doesn't tell us anything about what they believed.

Likewise, we don't "know" that there were Christians in Rome in 60 CE. Later Christians told us that there were, but we really don't know what they believed regarding Jesus, or what tales they had of his death. In any case, that is well after Philo wrote.

You'll have to do better than that.

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

There's a big problem with your idea that Philo may have borrowed details. Philo's narrative makes a lot of sense. The elements from his story that the gospels borrow are mixed in, but do not necessarily make sense in their gospel context. Why does Pilate think that Jesus' opponents are motivated by envy? Why does Judas betray Jesus and then quickly confess? Those elements are part of a coherent narrative in Philo's story, but stick out like unexplained sore thumbs in the gospels. You will have to find a convincing explanation for those sore thumbs to argue that Philo borrowed from the gospels.

On the envy: Mark 11:18 "And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching." He was popular with the people, and embarrassing the Pharisees with His intelligent answers and miracles. I can't see why envy wouldn't be a reasonable emotion. Can you?

On Judas's quick confessing: I have no idea why that is a problem. It doesn't stick out at all. Can you tell me how it does?

Quote:

Besides that, there is absolutely no evidence that the Passion Narrative existed in its present form when Philo was writing (he is estimated to have written Against Flaccus in 42 CE and died 45-50 CE).

Yes, you are right. But parts of it were there. Paul wrote very early about the Last Supper and the crucifixion. As for the rest, you are effectively saying that any parallels between Philo's writings and the gospels means it couldn't have happen. Yet many of the parallels are either contrived or unsurprising, given that they deal with similar events in the first place.

Here's a life of a Teacher: how many parallels to Jesus can be drawn?

In ancient times there was once a Teacher. This Teacher was a lofty idealist who represented the highest consciousness and intelligence his society had to offer; he regarded himself as appointed by God for his task, and he operated a ministry with an eye towards revolutionizing conduct. His methods were simple and direct: He went straight to the public, offering his direction at no charge; at the same time, he shunned official institutions.

In time, this Teacher gathered followers who absorbed his message, so that he would eventually be recognized as the founder of a movement. However, he angered the authorities of his day, was put on trial, and condemned to death.

After his death, the Teacher's followers were dismayed for a time; yet the inspiration their Teacher had given them lived on in their hearts. Wishing to restore the Teachers' reputation, which had been injured by his trial and execution, they published - as much as 20 to 30 years later; how long exactly we cannot be certain - the Teachers' sayings and deeds, and an accounting of his personal traits; for the Teacher himself had written nothing of his own volition to remember him by.

The Teacher here was Socrates. There are undeniable parallels to Jesus's life. Do these imply borrowings?

Quote:

The historical value of Paul's letters is questionable. There has been ample opportunity to interpolate and forge them

I believe that 7 are regarded as reliable. In one, 1 Cor, he mentions crucifixion and the Last Supper.

Quote:

You'll have to do better than that.

It will be difficult. Your position is close to unassailable. If I point out how vague the similarity is, you'll just say "oh, I'm not saying the similarity has to be exact". Yet none of the similarities are so startling as to suggest anything other than co-incidence. For example: Jesus was scourged and crucified in the Gospels. Elderly Jews were scourged, tortured, broken on the wheel and crucified in Philo. Jesus was betrayed by Judas, his disciple. The Jews of Alexandria were "betrayed" by Flaccus, their governor. Hardly significant parallels, IMHO.

So let's look at the 6 criteria:

Criterion of Accessibility

This criterion "assesses the likeliness that the author had access to the hypotext..

I think that we can assume that the gospel writers had access to Philo's writings. But I think it is also reasonable to assume that some elements in the PN like the crucifixion and the Last Supper were known early, as indicated by Paul's writings. There's simply no need to assume borrowing on those points at least.

Criterion of Analogy

As you say, "We do not have other classical examples of the mimesis of Philo�s work that I know of. But Philo has not been studied as much as Josephus ".

Criterion of Density

This criterion "pertains to the volume of contacts between two texts. Density is determined by bulk, not by count; parallels between two texts may be numerous but trivial, such as 'he said,' 'they went,' 'she replied.' Not even a legion of parallels would demonstrate imitation. On the other hand, as few as two or three weighty similarities may suffice.

Leidner lists 24. I'll examine them later to see if they are significant.

Criterion of Order

This criterion "is related to density insofar as it assesses the sequence of the parallels. The more often two texts share content in the same order, the stronger the case for literary dependence"

As you say, there is no correspondence of order between the PN and Philo.

Criterion of Distinctiveness

As you say, neither of us speak Greek, so neither of us can evaluate this.

Criterion of Interpretability, or Intelligibility

"The Capacity of the proposed hypotext to make sense of the hypertext. This may include the solution to a peculiar problem that has eluded other explanations. It also may include emulation, or transvaluation.

You say that "This is where Leidner�s analogies shine. He can explain many details that are embarrassing, discordant, or just senseless by showing how they made sense in Philo�s narrative. "

You've mentioned the "envy" and "Judas" examples. What are the others?

So, of the 6 criteria, 1 passes, 2 we can't evaluate, 1 fails, and 2 are in contention: Density and Interpretability. So far the later doesn't look good, if Leidner raised the "envy" point.

I'll go through the details in the next post.

Peter Kirby · 05-17-2003, 09:55 AM

GakuseiDon writes: I think that we can assume that the gospel writers had access to Philo's writings.

The earliest extant Christian reference to Philo is in Clement's Stromata (or Miscellanies). But, then, both of them resided in Alexandria, and we know that Clement read widely in hellenistic literature. What evidence do we have that the author of Mark—or whoever shaped the passion narrative—would have read Philo? I don't recall that Philo was used for schoolboy Greek lessons in the manner of Homer. Of course, it's possible, given that Mark wrote after Philo of Alexandria, but do we have anything that would bump that up to plausible or probable?

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
GakuseiDon writes: I think that we can assume that the gospel writers had access to Philo's writings.

The earliest extant Christian reference to Philo is in Clement's Stromata (or Miscellanies). But, then, both of them resided in Alexandria, and we know that Clement read widely in hellenistic literature. What evidence do we have that the author of Mark—or whoever shaped the passion narrative—would have read Philo? I don't recall that Philo was used for schoolboy Greek lessons in the manner of Homer. Of course, it's possible, given that Mark wrote after Philo of Alexandria, but do we have anything that would bump that up to plausible or probable?

best,
Peter Kirby

Yes, good point, Peter. If it could be shown that it is improbable for Philo's writings to have been known so early, then the argument is effectively over! But I think that the parallels themselves would probably be make it probable, so I'm willing to grant it as plausible for the sake of argument, and mark that criterion as a pass. (Of course, I disagree that the parallels are anything other than coincidence anyway).

Toto · 05-17-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
On the envy: Mark 11:18 "And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching." He was popular with the people, and embarrassing the Pharisees with His intelligent answers and miracles. I can't see why envy wouldn't be a reasonable emotion. Can you?

"Fear" is not the same as "envy". "Envy" implies that the object of your envy has something you want, usually some material thing. It fits Philo's story, it doesn't fit the gospels.

When you think of some holy self-sacrificing person like Mother Theresa, do you think that people envy her? Some dislike her for political reasons, but "envy" just doesn't fit.

The whole envy bit has been a puzzle that scholars brush over. There is a long article "It Was Out of Envy That They Handed Jesus Over" (Mark 15:10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of Mark by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Jerome H. Neyrey which notes "One writer has gone so far as to claim that ". . . envy is not a topic of any significance in ... the New Testament."(1) " and in footnote (1) "M. W. Dickie, "Envy," ABD 2.528. Yet Dickie is no worse off than the commentators on Mark 15:10 who simply ignore the mention of envy there." The authors then go into a long and tortorous post-modern sociological expostion of Honor and Shame in the ancient near east (which I admit I have not been able to read completely - if you get anything out of it let me know.)

Quote:

On Judas's quick confessing: I have no idea why that is a problem. It doesn't stick out at all. Can you tell me how it does?

Judas is obviously a made up character, there to get the plot along. He was supposedly chosen by the Lord Himself to be part of the inner circle, and trusted with the treasury. Then he suddenly goes bad and sells out Jesus for a paltry sum of money, but almost immediately repents and kills himself. There is nothing about this that makes any sense if it were real history.

Quote:

Yes, you are right. But parts of it were there. Paul wrote very early about the Last Supper and the crucifixion. As for the rest, you are effectively saying that any parallels between Philo's writings and the gospels means it couldn't have happen. Yet many of the parallels are either contrived or unsurprising, given that they deal with similar events in the first place.

What I am saying is that where there are literary parallels, we can assume that the story is a literary construct, and the document itself cannot be used as evidence that there is history behind it.

Quote:

Here's a life of a Teacher: how many parallels to Jesus can be drawn?

{snip}
The Teacher here was Socrates. There are undeniable parallels to Jesus's life. Do these imply borrowings?

The possibility that Jesus' life was modeled on Socrates, or that both were modeled on a basic theme, has been noted. Why do you think this is a point in your favor?

Quote:

I believe that 7 are regarded as reliable. In one, 1 Cor, he mentions crucifixion and the Last Supper.

But not the character of Judas, the strange bifurcated trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, with Herod looking in, etc.

I'll wait for your more detailed responses to continue.

Toto · 05-17-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
GakuseiDon writes: I think that we can assume that the gospel writers had access to Philo's writings.

The earliest extant Christian reference to Philo is in Clement's Stromata (or Miscellanies). But, then, both of them resided in Alexandria, and we know that Clement read widely in hellenistic literature. What evidence do we have that the author of Mark—or whoever shaped the passion narrative—would have read Philo? I don't recall that Philo was used for schoolboy Greek lessons in the manner of Homer. Of course, it's possible, given that Mark wrote after Philo of Alexandria, but do we have anything that would bump that up to plausible or probable?

best,
Peter Kirby

Leinder thinks that the Passion Narrative was a much later addition to aMark's original gospel, probably added by one of those church fathers. But I didn't want to complicate the question. I think that the evidence here has to come from the text itself.

Vinnie · 05-17-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

You may claim that Jesus lived about 30 CE, but your only evidence for that is the gospels, and we have no mention anywhere of the gospels before about 140 CE. There may have been Christians before that time, but you have not explained how Philo would have met them.

Paper plug time:

http://www.acfaith.com/jchronology.html

Jesus died about 30 ad. I claim it.

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2003, 09:55 AM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	GakuseiDon writes: I think that we can assume that the gospel writers had access to Philo's writings. The earliest extant Christian reference to Philo is in Clement's Stromata (or Miscellanies). But, then, both of them resided in Alexandria, and we know that Clement read widely in hellenistic literature. What evidence do we have that the author of Mark—or whoever shaped the passion narrative—would have read Philo? I don't recall that Philo was used for schoolboy Greek lessons in the manner of Homer. Of course, it's possible, given that Mark wrote after Philo of Alexandria, but do we have anything that would bump that up to plausible or probable? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.