The use of Philo by the Gospel writers

[Malachi151]

I was thinking about the fact that Philo wrote about Pilate, but never wrote about Jesus. I was thinking that this showed Philo was covering the events that took place in Judea at that time and place, making his lack of mention of Jesus all the more striking, but then something even more important hit me.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo. Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that the gospels writers themselves read Philo and that they in fact used the works of Philo in their writings.

This being the case, does not this tell us HOW and WHY Pilate is encorporated into the Jesus story!!!

Here is where Philo is used by the gospels writers:

Flaccus IV ; Philo

(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all his days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;

(37) and 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;

(38) 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.

(39) 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 [King Herod of the Jews] was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;

This undoubetdly was the inspiration for the mocking scene during the trial of Jesus. If this is so, then is it not also then most likely that the writer of Mark had also read:

ON THE EMBASSY TO GAIUS - Philo

Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

Thereby making Pilate the obvious choice of the one to sentence Jesus to death?

Does not the testimony of Philo both:

1) Provide us with a greater "lack of evidence" for Jesus, since he wrote about Pilate but not Jesus

and simultanously:

2) Provide the written material to be used by the writers of the gospels some 40 - 50 years later.

[k_smith123]

I believe it is quite right to suggest that Philo influenced the Gospel writers, but why should we stop with a couple of parallels? Philo argued that the writings attributed to Moses could be interpreted allegorically, so couldn’t the Gospel writers have intended for the Gospels also to be allegory? This approach could obviously explain Christ’s supposed miracles, as well as the literal errors and contradictions that Christians claim do not exist.

[Vorkosigan]

Mocking scenes are common in the literature and festival practice of the day. It is difficult to ascribe that scene to any particular scene in any particular text. It could simply be a mock triumph, such as was given to Sejanus when he was purged. Do you have any linguistic links between the texts, other than Barabbas/Carabbas? Also, are you aware that Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth argued that the Flaccus tale in Philo is the source for the whole gospel betrayal/last meal/etc scenes?

Michael

[JoyJuice]

Philo, a admirer of Heraclitus who talks about the Logos being the "divine spark" seems to had made use of the idea that to me cements the idea that the writer of John was well aware of Philo:

The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12 [ed. Mangey, i. 308]; "De Profugis," § 20 [ed. Mangey, i. 562]).

HERE (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=964&letter=S)

[Malachi151]

Yes, I'm aware of those things. From what I know, Philo:

Described creation via “the Word”
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

My primary concern in this thread, however, is his works on Pilate, and what they mean.

Pilate, has been a major stumbling block for me in regard to the Jesus Myth, but this seems to solve the issue.

Pilate is first mentioned in Mark. Every other reference to Pilate in Christian writings comes after Mark. Both "Mark" and "John", at least, seem to have been readers of Philo, as well as many other early Christians.

What I have found interesting, is that Christian "scholars" are all aware that Philo wrote about Pilate, in fact, they trumpet this fact as "more evidence that supports the existance of Jesus", merely because it helps to confirm the existance of this character in the narrative.

What they seem to overlook, however, is that this is really further evidence against the existance of Jesus because:

#1: It shows that Philo was writing about the goings on in Judea under the rule of Pilate, yet he makes no mention of Jesus or any circumstances anything like what is described in the gospels.

#2: Since Philo wrote before the gospel writers, and we have very good reason to believe that the gospel writers read the works of Philo, Philo then becomes the source for the Pilate character in the gospels!

Of course Pilate would not have ben unknown at the time the gospels were written, so they wouldn't really NEED him as a source, but I suspect that the gospels (at least Mark) were written by people wo had never been to Judea or anywhere near that region, as evidenced by their poor description of the area, and were thus using sources to provide them with the details they needed to craft the story.

[gstafleu]

#1: It shows that Philo was writing about the goings on in Judea under the rule of Pilate, yet he makes no mention of Jesus or any circumstances anything like what is described in the gospels.

#2: Since Philo wrote before the gospel writers, and we have very good reason to believe that the gospel writers read the works of Philo, Philo then becomes the source for the Pilate character in the gospels!
Doesn't this need a

#3: The gospel writers than inserted the Jesus character into the time of Pilate.

Given that they apparently inserted a character that they knew not to be historical (from Philo), that would again plead for an allegorical reading of the Gospels (at least Mark and John).

Gerard

[Malachi151]

I can only conclude that whoever wrote Mark obviously knew that they weren't writing history and that they were writing an allegorical work. Mark's gospel is crafted from the "old testament" scriptures and presumably Philo, obviously the writer was aware that he was copying and crafting, etc.

Did he intend the work to be taken as history? I'm not sure. either he was writing a story that was intended to be allegory, or he was writing with intent to deceive.

Matthew and Luke, seem to have had intent to decieve. Obviously Matthew crafted many additonal elements from the old scriptures as well, but his work seems to be more crude and blatant.

Luke, presumably also the author of Acts, was also writing fiction, but I'm not sure if he intended it to be taken as fact or not, but I think he did have this intent.

The gospel of John, it seems, was origionally a gnostic gospel, which was later revised and changed into an anti-gnostic gospel. This is the conclusion of many researchers on this subject based on the earliest references to John, and the collections that fragments of John are found in.

So, it seems that the origional author of John was perhaps writing allegorically, but the later revision had an intent to craft history.

This business of Philo and Pilate, however has really strengthened my conviction that there was no historical basis for the Jesus character at all.

[jgibson000]

I was thinking about the fact that Philo wrote about Pilate, but never wrote about Jesus. I was thinking that this showed Philo was covering the events that took place in Judea at that time and place, making his lack of mention of Jesus all the more striking, but then something even more important hit me.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo.



We do? For a fact? Can you please tell me what backs up this clam? Can you provde any scholarly support for it?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Malachi151]

We do? For a fact? Can you please tell me what backs up this clam? Can you provde any scholarly support for it?

Jeffrey Gibson

Well, his works were mentioned by many of the earliest Christians, his works have been found in the collections of early Christians, and there are many correlations between his writings and those of the gospel writers that would indicate that they were reading them as well.

[jgibson000]

Well, his works were mentioned by many of the earliest Christians,

Umm, like whom?


his works have been found in the collections of early Christians,

Such as?

and there are many correlations between his writings and those of the gospel writers that would indicate that they were reading them as well.

Reallly? Could you pont us to some of these correlations? Are they, whatever they are, so exact so as to have no other explanaton except dependence upon or derivaton from Philo?

And where, as I asked you previously, can I find scholarly backing for your contention?

Jeffrey Giibson

[Malachi151]

And where, as I asked you previously, can I find scholarly backing for your contention?

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]

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.

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]

Do the research yourself.

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.

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

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.

BTW, there is nothing controversion about this statement, its like saying that we know that Greeks knew the world was round.

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?

Its common knowledge, which you can find for yourself without effort.

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.

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

Andrew Criddle

I do not know of any reason to think so.

Michael

[Malachi151]

I do not know of any reason to think so.

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/showchapter.asp?title=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:

This combination of revelation and ignorance must mean that, whatever Jesus’ disciples did or did not understand, Mark himself now does understand. He knows that they did not fully recognize who Jesus was or what he was doing and teaching. He does not explain how he himself received further illumination; but it seems fairly clear that it was the result of the resurrection. It may be suggested that he can emphasize the ignorance of the apostles only if he assumes that they have later come to understand. His emphasis upon the weakness and ignorance of Peter may be due to what Peter himself later said.

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]

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.

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/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/ReversedPs22Mark15.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?


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/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1228

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

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]

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

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

Can you give me some ideas and themes in Mark that match Philo?

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]

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.

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]

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

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?

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

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

[jakejonesiv]

I was thinking about the fact that Philo wrote about Pilate, but never wrote about Jesus. I was thinking that this showed Philo was covering the events that took place in Judea at that time and place, making his lack of mention of Jesus all the more striking, but then something even more important hit me.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo. Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that the gospels writers themselves read Philo and that they in fact used the works of Philo in their writings.

This being the case, does not this tell us HOW and WHY Pilate is encorporated into the Jesus story!!!

Here is where Philo is used by the gospels writers:



This undoubetdly was the inspiration for the mocking scene during the trial of Jesus. If this is so, then is it not also then most likely that the writer of Mark had also read:



Thereby making Pilate the obvious choice of the one to sentence Jesus to death?

Does not the testimony of Philo both:

1) Provide us with a greater "lack of evidence" for Jesus, since he wrote about Pilate but not Jesus

and simultanously:

2) Provide the written material to be used by the writers of the gospels some 40 - 50 years later.

Hi Malachi,

These are interesting observations. :cool:

Toto has a good review of the issues here.
The Passion Narrative and Philo (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=990054&postcount=1) The density of meaningful parallels seems to indicate a connection between the two texts.

The Mock King was a ritual that was widespread in antiquity. Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth, The Sufferings of the Messiah (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/drews4.htm), has a high level discussion of it. That is, about 50,000 feet: the same level as Frazier in the Golden Bough, The Roman Saturnalia (http://www.bartleby.com/196/145.html)

Jake Jones IV

[mountainman]

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo.

Its common knowledge, which you can find for yourself without effort.

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.


The specialists are not plural - there is only one.
And the name is Eusebius, in whose writings alone
all references are "preserved".

What we know as these "Malachi-FACTS" are 100% Eusebian.
They are not facts, but assertions within a theological
romance. Eusebius purports to write literature which he
(and his followers) call "history", but it is certainly not.

For example, we have George Long, in the translation of
Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" saying this:

"Our extant ecclesiastical histories are manifestly falsified
and what truth they contain is grossly exaggerated."

And for the period from 100 to 300, there is only one "history"
and one "historian" Eusebius. These wild fantastic claims that
I see floating around here, related to "christian facts"
are not leaving any sensible impressions.



Pete Brown
Authors of Antiquity (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm)

[Clivedurdle]

Are you arguing Philo is a xian invention?

http://www.torreys.org/bible/philo&beg.html

[mountainman]

Are you arguing Philo is a xian invention?

http://www.torreys.org/bible/philo&beg.html

No, that christianity is a Constantinian invention which
heavily borrowed for its "wisdom sayings" from the
reports of Philo, Josephus and others on the order
known as "the Essenes", such as comprehensively
catalogued here (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/essene_philosophy.htm).

And futhermore, reasonably clearly, as is evidenced in
the threads: Influence of Buddhism on Christianity? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=183246) and
Is Christianity western BUDDHISM?? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=123887)(thx again for this
ref btw), that the Essenic philosophy and practices
were descended from the east.



Pete Brown

[Clivedurdle]

The practices described by Philo were considered as early as Eusebius of Caesarea as one of the first models of Christian monastic life. Eusebius was so sure of his identification of Therapeutae with Christians that he deduced that Philo, who admired them so, must have been Christian himself, not knowing the date of Philo's essay, and Christian readers still believed that this must have been so until the end of the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae

Was Eusebius wrong? Only if we accept the alleged timeline of the life of Jesus!

Xianity really does look like a cobbled together superstitio taking ideas from all over the place!

[mountainman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae

Was Eusebius wrong? Only if we accept the alleged timeline of the life of Jesus!

The ecclesiatical history literature of Eusebius was written
immediately after Constantine had secured Rome and the
western empire as his, and had sent Maxientius' head through
the streets of Rome, and "to Africa as a warning".

Eusebius was Constantine's propagandist. My modern history
knowledge is lacking, but did Hitler have a person appointed to
generate literature for his regime, and if so, what was the
relationship of the genre of the literature, to the genre of
the dictatorial regime?

Xianity really does look like a cobbled together superstitio taking ideas from all over the place!

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."

--- Emperor (360-363 CE) Flavius Claudius Julianus (the Apostate)
"Against the Galileans" remains of the 3 books,
excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum (1923)"


Constantine pulled the ancient world off its foundations
because he wanted more and more absolute power.

That the roots of the history of christianity is al fiction
of wicked men, as described above by Julian, is one thing. IMO,
I will qualify Julian to charge that its inception was perpetrated as
an imperially sponsored fiction, and thrust down the throat of the
Roman empire (for the very first time) in 325CE, at Nicaea, as a package
- of historical change, against the warnings of Arius:
"There was time when he was not"
"He was made out of nothing existing"
"He is subject to change and alteration"

The words consistent with a very brave man, highly skilled
and exceedingly clever in disputation (and you needed to
be so to go AGAINST Constantine, on account of
whose same and very words, the historians inform us, the
council was called. He did not want to lose his life, but Arius
disputed the integrity of the fabrication of the Galilaeans
at the time at the time of the implementation of "christianity"
by Constantine, the basilia builder extraordinaire, the highly
intelligent supreme imperial mafia thug dictator, etc.

There is a boundary in the history of antiquity which I have
termed the pre-Nicaean Epoch, and before this boundary
the future historians of antiquity will not be forced to be
apologetic to christian dogma, because christianity, as defined
in the books of the new testament, by its non-canonical books,
by its abysmal and wretched "Ecclesiatical Histories", by the
purported and fraudulently interpolated references to anything
christian in the literature of antiquity, simply did not exist at
all prior to the time of the visit of Maxientius' head, on the
spike of Constantine, travelling "to Africa as a warning".(312CE)




Pete Brown

[jgibson000]

Could we leave off with this "Eusebius wrote the NT nonsense" and get back on topic, please?

Or to put it another way: assuming -- as most without a hobby horse to ride do -- that the books of the NT were written roughly between 50 and 150 CE, does the claim that NT writers, and in particular the Gospel authors, knew and used Philo, have any merit?

Can (or as it looks now, will) "Malachi151" (groan) back up his claims in this regard? Can/will he tell us if he is certain that the themes (allegedly) in Philo that he finds paralleled in the NT are peculiar to Philo and do not occur/appear anywhere else in ancient Jewish literature?

Is it really the case, as he asserts it is, and can he actually show us through citation, that his claim about the NT writers having read and used Philo is something that we find widely supported by Philo and NT scholars?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Chris Weimer]

Could we leave off with this "Eusebius wrote the NT nonsense" and get back on topic, please?
Jeffrey, just put him on ignore, if it bothers you that much. It's what I did.

[Malachi151]

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?

I don't know Greek, so no I can't offer that level of analysis, nor do I even think its relavent, because I'm not claiming, nor has anyone, that Mark COPIED from Philo word for word as he did from the Septugient, but rather that he and John were influenced by Philo, so textual analysis isn't going to matter here, especially since the writing style of Mark and Philo are compeletely different.

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?

Yes I have read many of the works of Philo, in fact some of the parallels I listed are ones that I noticed myself. Of course, I've read only english translations.

About "the Word", for example:

What, then, can it be except the Word, which is more ancient than all the things which were the objects of creation, and by means of which it is the Ruler of the universe, taking hold of it as a rudder, governs all things. And when he was fashioning the world, he used this as his instrument for the blameless argument of all the things which he was completing.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book16.html

This is just one example of many, I've read about 5 different uses of "the Word" by Philo. I'm not going to go through and mine every work of Philo I've read in the past 2 years to build a case here, that's not my interest.

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?

Obviously I can't do that, no one can, since its imposisble to say what all the potentialy lost books said. I'm simply working from the works that we have available to us. Its always possible that soemoen else wrote things similar to Philo, either independently or based on Philo, and that Mark read that instead. :rolleyes:

What I said is this:

We know, FOR A FACT, that the early Christians read the works of Philo. Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that the gospels writers themselves read Philo and that they in fact used the works of Philo in their writings.

We do know for a fact that the early Christians, as early as the second century were reading Philo, they quoted him and we have found works of Philo in various collections. I said that we have "good reason to believe" that the gospel writers read Philo, not that we "know if for a fact".

I have provided what I feel are those good reasons. I'm not going to dig up every specific quote, you can find much of it yourself via quick searches, the others you can learn about yourself by reading Philo (in Greek if you so choose!)

[Chris Weimer]

I don't know Greek, so no I can't offer that level of analysis, nor do I even think its relavent, because I'm not claiming, nor has anyone, that Mark COPIED from Philo word for word as he did from the Septugient, but rather that he and John were influenced by Philo, so textual analysis isn't going to matter here, especially since the writing style of Mark and Philo are compeletely different.
Usually the surest way to understand dependence is by linguistic analysis. You don't need to read Philo to get an idea common around the entire mediterranean, as Vork and others have been trying to explain to you. Yet you continue to ignore this. Why?

Yes I have read many of the works of Philo, in fact some of the parallels I listed are ones that I noticed myself. Of course, I've read only english translations.
Then you should still have no problem citing your research like a proper scholar.

Regarding "the word", Philo himself borrowed the idea from earlier Greek thought, undoubtedly the idea was not limited to Philo. And that you're using John as your backbone for this is not healthy - there's way too many problems with the reliability of John to make a case against all early Christian writers depending on Philonic ideas.

This is just one example of many, I've read about 5 different uses of "the Word" by Philo. I'm not going to go through and mine every work of Philo I've read in the past 2 years to build a case here, that's not my interest.
If you're not interested in actually doing the work, how can you ever expect to be taken seriously?

Obviously I can't do that, no one can, since its imposisble to say what all the potentialy lost books said. I'm simply working from the works that we have available to us. Its always possible that soemoen else wrote things similar to Philo, either independently or based on Philo, and that Mark read that instead. :rolleyes:
Fallacy. Jeffrey said "corpus of ancient Jewish writings" which always implies that which is extent. How you inferred lost Jewish writings is beyond me and very unprofessional.

We do know for a fact that the early Christians, as early as the second century were reading Philo, they quoted him and we have found works of Philo in various collections. I said that we have "good reason to believe" that the gospel writers read Philo, not that we "know if for a fact".
The earliest Christian you have is Clement of Alexandria, a Christian in the same locality as Philo, and you expect us to take that as a general statement that early Christians read Philo and harbored his collection? And you still don't have any reason at all to believe the Gospel writers (which ones, anyway?) read and depended on Philo.

[Malachi151]

Usually the surest way to understand dependence is by linguistic analysis. You don't need to read Philo to get an idea common around the entire mediterranean, as Vork and others have been trying to explain to you. Yet you continue to ignore this. Why?

I'm not ignoring this. Yes, it is a possibility, I never ruled that out, hecne I said "good reason to believe". However, its not a case of one thing here and there, its a case of many things, and I personally am not aware of as condensed a set of ideas that resemble Christians ideas as what we find with Philo.

I'm not the only one who holds this opinion, in fact I thought it was commonly accepted, which is why I simply stated it. I didn't think of it as controversial, and it wasn't the objective of my post. The objective of my post was to talk about the possibility that Philo's account of Pilate, specifcially, influenced Mark.

There has been one legitimate criticism of this position, which is that Philo portrays Pilate as a "bad person", and Mark portrays him as a sort of good person who is pushed beyond recourse by the Jews.

This would indicate that Philo's view of Pilate is the opposite of Mark's view or use.

The explanations are:

1) Mark's account of Pilate had nothing to do with Philo.
2) Mark had read Philo's account of Pilate, but since Mark held adifferent view of the Jewish community, i.e. that "they are wrong and Rome is right", he reversed the portrayals.

That's what I started the thread to discuss, not other aspects, which I didn't really have an interest in, and which I took as an existing and uncontroversial starting point.

[Chris Weimer]

I'm not the only one who holds this opinion, in fact I thought it was commonly accepted, which is why I simply stated it. I didn't think of it as controversial, and it wasn't the objective of my post. The objective of my post was to talk about the possibility that Philo's account of Pilate, specifcially, influenced Mark.
Without demonstrating that Mark reversed the portrayal of Pilate, I don't see any leg to stand on here.

1) Mark's account of Pilate had nothing to do with Philo.
2) Mark's had read Philo's account of Pilate, but since Mark held adifferent view of the Jewish community, i.e. that "they are wrong and Rome is right", he reversed the portrayals.
The second option would take considerable effort to demonstrate it. It cannot be assumed.

[jgibson000]

I don't know Greek, so no I can't offer that level of analysis, nor do I even think its relavent, because I'm not claiming, nor has anyone, that Mark COPIED from Philo word for word as he did from the Septugient, but rather that he and John were influenced by Philo, so textual analysis isn't going to matter here, especially since the writing style of Mark and Philo are compeletely different.

How do you know since you are unable to evaluate either not knowing Greek?

Yes I have read many of the works of Philo, in fact some of the parallels I listed are ones that I noticed myself. Of course, I've read only english translations.

Some? So which ones are from your reading and which are not? And what is the source of those that you adduced that are not of your own noticing?

Why have you avoided answering this question?

Obviously I can't do that, no one can, since its imposisble to say what all the potentialy lost books said.

Did I say anthing about lost books, let alone potentially lost [:huh:] ones?

I'm simply working from the works that we have available to us.

Really? Then, assuming that "works that we have available to us" means the OT Apocrypha and the OT Pseudepigraphal works that are readily accessable in both print and online editions, you are claiming that have worked through these books. So you should be quite able to tell us whether or not the topoi you claim are to be found in Philo and paralleled in the NT are indeed peculiar to Philo. Are they or arent they?

Its always possible that soemoen else wrote things similar to Philo, either independently or based on Philo, and that Mark read that instead. :rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you want, but (leaving aside the matter of whether the things you claim are in Philo are really there) the issue at hand isn't whether this is a possibility.

It's whether, in the light of your claim that you've "worked from the works that we have available to us", and, therefore, that you've worked through the extant corpus of intertestamental Jewish literature known as the OT apocrapha and the OT Pseudepigrapha, you can still assert with confidence -- as could anyone who, like yourself, has read the intertestamental works available to us -- that the topoi you have "found" in Philo are indeed peculiar to Philo and do not appear anywhere else in the extant corpus of Intertestamental Jewish literature?

In other words, do you or do you not know whether the topoi you say are in Philo do not also appear in extant Jewish Intertestamental writings, let alone extant Jewish writings that were composed at the same time that Philo worked?

What I said is this:



We do know for a fact that the early Christians, as early as the second century were reading Philo, they quoted him and we have found works of Philo in various collections.

And as I said previously: What collections?

I said that we have "good reason to believe" that the gospel writers read Philo, not that we "know if for a fact".

Yes you did. But even so, to claim that the fact that one Alexandrian writer quotes Philo in the late second century is a good reason to believe that Christian writers who lived outside of Alexandria, who presumably were not trained in Philosophy, let alone in Alexandria in an Alexandrian form of Philosophy, and who wrote a century or so before this Alexandrian writer did, is "good reason" to believe that the Gospel writers read Philo, seems to me not only to be stretching the idea of "good reason" way beyond its proper limits, but to cast a pall on the idea that you have a grasp on what distingusihes a "good" reason from a bad one.


I have provided what I feel are those good reasons.

Yes. But we now have good reason to think that your sense/feeling of what a good reason is should not be trusted.

I'm not going to dig up every specific quote, you can find much of it yourself via quick searches, the others you can learn about yourself by reading Philo (in Greek if you so choose!)

In other words, despite your claims that have read Philo, you don't really know where the topoi you adduce as (peculiarly) Philonic actually occur. Thanks for clairfying.

JG

[jgibson000]

I'm not ignoring this. Yes, it is a possibility, I never ruled that out, hecne I said "good reason to believe". However, its not a case of one thing here and there, its a case of many things, and I personally am not aware of as condensed a set of ideas that resemble Christians ideas as what we find with Philo.

I'm not the only one who holds this opinion, in fact I thought it was commonly accepted, which is why I simply stated it.

You've said this before. But so far when asked about the truth of your claim that there are indeed others beside yourself who hold "this opinion" and, more importantly, that this "opinion" is "commonly accepted", you have failed to provide even the smallest scrap of evidence in support of what you say.

So I ask again:

Who else holds this opinion? Who else has asserted that the NT writers knew and used Philo?

More importantly, is it really the case, as you claim it is when you say that the idea of NT writers' knowldege and use of Philo is "commonly accepted", that this "opinion" is something that is held by the very people who, if your assertion is correct, we would expect to hold it -- specialists in Philo and in NT writings?

Could it be that your refusal to answer these questions is due to the fact that you are trying to avoid showing that you don't really know?

JG

[Malachi151]

jgibson000

I could smell you a mile away, which is why I gave you a curt anwser in the first place. I don't have any interest in getting into this, I made it clear what this post was about, and I don't care about your nit picking. I don't care if you think that people need to read everything in its origional language.

I have a whole folder full of bookmarks on Philo and his writings. I have quotes from Philo on my website, which I could have easily given you had I wanted to. The fact is, I don't care.

These are subjects I've been reading about for years, over which my views on the subjects have formed. I'm not going to waste time digging up refernces to every thing I've read to satisfy your obviously arrogant attitude. I couldn't care less what you think, and I intentionally attempted to avoid the issue precisely because I didn't want to derail and sidetrack this issue, which seems to have failed.

If you don't think that its conceivable that gospel writers read Philo, then fine state as much, make you points, and move on.

[jgibson000]

jgibson000

I could smell you a mile away, which is why I gave you a curt anwser in the first place.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell us all what your keen nostrils detected.

I don't have any interest in getting into this, I made it clear what this post was about, and I don't care about your nit picking. I don't care if you think that people need to read everything in its origional language.

Since when is examining the validity of the basic premise of an argument "nitpicking"?

I have a whole folder full of bookmarks on Philo and his writings. I have quotes from Philo on my website, which I could have easily given you had I wanted to. The fact is, I don't care.

These are subjects I've been reading about for years, over which my views on the subjects have formed.

Then it should have been easy for you to back up your claims.

I'm not going to waste time digging up refernces to every thing I've read to satisfy your obviously arrogant attitude. I couldn't care less what you think, and I intentionally attempted to avoid the issue precisely because I didn't want to derail and sidetrack this issue, which seems to have failed.

If you don't think that its conceivable that gospel writers read Philo, then fine state as much, make you points, and move on.

Hmm. If I had to guess, I'd say that you are a graduate of the Kuchinsky school of argumentation. Shift the burden of proof, blame your interlocuter for not providing what you should be providing, and resort to bluster and high dudgeon when you cannot support your case.

Thanks.

JG

[Chris Weimer]

The fact is, I don't care.

That's no good at all. How can you ever expect to be taken seriously if you a) didn't even know that the Passion sequence mirrored Psalm 22, and b) not even willing to expose your sources. In any academic circle, biblical or otherwise, you'd be laughed out before you could even put forth your first argument. Until you decide to play by the rules here, consider yourself ignored.

*goes back to being extremely busy*

[mountainman]

If you don't think that its conceivable that gospel writers read Philo, then fine state as much, make you points, and move on.

IMO it is conceivable that the authors of the gospels read Philo,
primarily because the author Philo would have been one of the
more prolific sources of the old testament texts - in a number
of languages but including the greek (in which it is assumed the
new testament gospels were written).

Philo must have been at least one source. There may have been
others (of course), but those who are refusing to engage in civil
debate with you, appear reluctant to list other possible sources,
besides that of Philo.

FOr instance, I'd be asking Master Gibson who he thinks the
gospel writers used as a source for their old testament links
in the new testament, in the greek, if it wasn't Philo via Origen.
Perhaps there are many cited Old Testament books around the
Roman empire in the first century translated to the greek,
other than Philo's.



Pete

[jgibson000]

IMO it is conceivable that the authors of the gospels read Philo, primarily because the author Philo would have been one of the more prolific sources of the old testament texts - in a number of languages but including the greek (in which it is assumed the new testament gospels were written).

Excuse me, but what??? Why wouldn't the OT itself have been the source for the OT texts that the NT writers used? And are you saying that Philo presents OT texts in more than one langauge?

Philo must have been at least one source.

Must have been? On what do you base this claim?

JG

[mountainman]

Excuse me, but what??? Why wouldn't the OT itself have been the source for the OT texts that the NT writers used?

0) AFAIK OT itself was translated from Hebrew to Greek LXX in the era BCE.
1) Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin was in greek.
2) Greek was "the" language of the THEN Roman empire.
3) Christ and his Apostles in the NT quote from the Old Greek.(here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use))
4) AFAIK the NT (gospel) writers used the greek.

Whether or not the gospel writers used Philo, IMO they
most certainly must have used the Greek LXX and not
the original Hebrew OT itself



Pete Brown

[Amaleq13]

I'm not the only one who holds this opinion, in fact I thought it was commonly accepted, which is why I simply stated it.

Please identify some scholars who also hold this opinion.

I didn't think of it as controversial, and it wasn't the objective of my post.

Regardless of the importance you place on the claim, you did make it and should not complain if asked to support it. Given how commonly held you consider it, doing so should not be difficult.

Claimants are expected to be able to support all their claims. This isn't the kiddie pool, amigo. :)

[jgibson000]

0) AFAIK OT itself was translated from Hebrew to Greek LXX in the era BCE.
1) Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin was in greek.
2) Greek was "the" language of the THEN Roman empire.
3) Christ and his Apostles in the NT quote from the Old Greek.(here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use))
4) AFAIK the NT (gospel) writers used the greek.

Whether or not the gospel writers used Philo, IMO they
most certainly must have used the Greek LXX and not
the original Hebrew OT itself

Well, I agree for the most part (though see, e.g., Krister Stendahl's The School of St. Matthew). But for many Jews the LXX was the OT itself.

In any case, what you claim above does not seem to be what you were claiming in your previous post in which you said that early Christians used as Philo (through Origen?) as their source of what OT/ LXX quotations they use.

JG

[mountainman]

Well, I agree for the most part (though see, e.g., Krister Stendahl's The School of St. Matthew). But for many Jews the LXX was the OT itself.

In any case, what you claim above does not seem to be what you were claiming in your previous post in which you said that early Christians used as Philo (through Origen?) as their source of what OT/ LXX quotations they use.

JG

My earlier claim in my previous post was devoid of serious research.
I will honestly admit that until you challenged me, I was operating
under the false impression that Philo was in some part responsible
for the extant greek LXX translations in the 1st CE, not just a known
author who made comments upon the LXX.

One lives and learns, and on this occasion Master Gibson, you
have been an instrument by which I have improved my understanding
of Philo's role as an author in our common antiquity.

Thanks. And best wishes,


Pete Brown

[yalla]

"It has always been recognized that Johannine thought has some sort of affinity with that of Philo" p.54
"It has often been assumed, in ancient and modern times, that the Johannine Logos is identical with the Philonic". p.55 Continues..."This is a matter that calls for investigation".
"There is, however, a real affinity between the two writers in their use of symbolism..." p.55
"If we now assume....the extent of parallellism between Philo and the Fourth Gospel becomes remarkable". p.71
"It seems clear, therefore, that whatever elements of thought may enter into the background of the Fourth Gospel, it certainly presupposes a range of ideas having a remarkable resemblance to those of Hellenistic Judaism as represented by Philo." p.73

Ok the above does not say "read and knew'' and is talking about the realm of ideas and symbols etc which is not a specific passages of words, and it's about g"John" not "Mark" and so on.
But it does suggest some sort of relationship between [a] NT writer[s] and Philo does it not?
From:
C.H.Dodd "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel" C.U.P 1953

[yalla]

More on the relation ship, if any, between NT writers and Philo, according to scholars.

D. Nineham "St. Mark" Pelican 1963 writes with specific reference to this particular alleged Philo/"Mark" parallel:

"The highly speculative character of any such theories will be obvious enough....

[Such] an attitude of suspended judgement seems preferable to that of most recent commentators who dismiss the parallel as pure coincidence....

The parallels are rather more striking than that [refers to omitted material] suggests, though on the other hand ...........no explanation of the resemblances so far put forward really carries conviction....

Further discussion here would be out of place. especially as St."Mark" was no doubt quite unaware of any such pagan parallels...."
pages 418-419

I have tried not to butcher the meaning of the whole section.

yalla

[jgibson000]

"It has always been recognized that Johannine thought has some sort of affinity with that of Philo" p.54
"It has often been assumed, in ancient and modern times, that the Johannine Logos is identical with the Philonic". p.55 Continues..."This is a matter that calls for investigation".
"There is, however, a real affinity between the two writers in their use of symbolism..." p.55
"If we now assume....the extent of parallellism between Philo and the Fourth Gospel becomes remarkable". p.71
"It seems clear, therefore, that whatever elements of thought may enter into the background of the Fourth Gospel, it certainly presupposes a range of ideas having a remarkable resemblance to those of Hellenistic Judaism as represented by Philo." p.73

Ok the above does not say "read and knew'' and is talking about the realm of ideas and symbols etc which is not a specific passages of words, and it's about g"John" not "Mark" and so on.
But it does suggest some sort of relationship between [a] NT writer[s] and Philo does it not?
From:
C.H.Dodd "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel" C.U.P 1953


I hope you will note that Dodd wrote all of this before the Dead Sea Scrolls had a chance to have a real impact on NT studies. Indeed, when you look at Dodd's discussion of the "background" of GJohn (pp. 3-130), it seems that when he was writing The Interpretation, he was unaware of the DSS -- or at least what was in them -- since the theology and imagery and understanding of Judaism in the DSS figure not a whit. On top of this Dodd was still working in The Intrepretation under the assumptions prevalent at the time, but laid waste by the discovery of the DSS and the work of Martin Hengle and others, that not only was there was a "normative" Judaism within Palestine in the first century (i.e., that of the Rabbis), but that this Judaism had not been Hellenized and was a distinct entity from Hellenistic Judaism.

Though I cannot at the moment lay my hands on anything from Dodd on GJohn that is later than 1953, I do believe that after that, and in the light of the DSS, he changed his tune and saw that what he originally claimed within GJohn as reflecting the thought word exhibited in Philo was actually to be accounted for and explained by the theology and moral dualism of the DSS.

In any case, to my knowledge, the reputed affinity between the theology and language of GJohn and Philo, let alone the idea of the author of John's direct knowledge and use of Philo, finds few, if any, adherents today among Johannine or Philonic scholars.

Jeffrey Gibson

[andrewcriddle]

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/showchapter.asp?title=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.




The idea of the 'Alexandrian version' of Mark is based on the letter of Clement of Alexandria about 'Secret Mark'.

Many people regard this as a modern forgery (there have been various threads about it on this forum. )

Andrew Criddle

[yalla]

In any case, to my knowledge, the reputed affinity between the theology and language of GJohn and Philo, let alone the idea of the author of John's direct knowledge and use of Philo, finds few, if any, adherents today among Johannine or Philonic scholars.

Jeffrey Gibson

Gidday Jeffrey,
Thanks for that, I have checked out my sources, mainly the net cos I have very limited access to libraries etc, and it seems there was a watershed in the 60's leading to relating g"John" to the DSS at the expense of the other[s].
This quote I found from Cross seems to sum up what I could find and what you said:
"It now seems....that John has its strongest affinities not with the Greek world, or Philonic Judaism but with Palestinian Judaism".
Which puzzles me a little.
Granted that there are affinities between g"John" and Pal. Judaism, does that necessarily negate those affinities previously cited with respect to the other 2spheres of thought?
Dodd's points of similarity between g'John' and Philo do not disappear even if those of the DSS are accepted as stronger.
Could it mean that the group of characteristics Gk/Philonic Judaism/g"John" can simply be extended to include the material from the DSS, even if the latter is most significant?
I guess what I'm asking is are these categories mutually exclusive, was the regional compartmentalisation so strong as to preclude links between the author of "John", Alexandrian Hellenistic and Judaistic thought and Palestinian thought?
Could they have cross fertilized each other or have been intertwined in some complex manner from previous material?
This is virgin territory for me.
cheers
yalla