Mark's use of Philo

[davidmartin]

how do you know Philo isn't using Mark?
it's not as if we have the virgin manuscript that Philo himself wrote while his wife brought him bagels. No, we have a copy that presumably was in Jewish hands for a century or more. If they objected to any of it (if? what am I saying!) they could easily put in silly stories for the enjoyment of their readers, and these are silly stories, come on this stuff didn't happen for real, it's more like a parody of Mark

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

how do you know Philo isn't using Mark?
it's not as if we have the virgin manuscript that Philo himself wrote while his wife brought him bagels. No, we have a copy that presumably was in Jewish hands for a century or more. If they objected to any of it (if? what am I saying!) they could easily put in silly stories for the enjoyment of their readers, and these are silly stories, come on this stuff didn't happen for real, it's more like a parody of Mark

At least I wondered why Philo reported this story. One gets the impression that it is ultimately just an "entertaining story", and his evidence that it was supposedly a mocking of Agrippa doesn't seem particularly obvious. It was children and young people who mocked Carabbas, but the shout is said to have come from the audience.

Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out “Maris, Maris" [or 'Marin, Marin']; 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.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The parallel simply indicates a Concept that was well-known ... and therefore appeared as a Meme in varied works of the period.

Perhaps in Josephus's version of Esther AJ 11.6.10 too (it's not in the Hebrew or Greek books of Esther)

However he (Haman) went out, and led the horse, and took the purple garment, and the golden chain for the neck; and finding Mordecai before the court, clothed in sackcloth, he bid him put that garment off, and put the purple garment on. But Mordecai, not knowing the truth of the matter, but thinking that it was done in mockery, said, “O thou wretch; the vilest of all mankind: dost thou thus laugh at our calamities?” But when he was satisfied that the King bestowed this honour upon him, for the deliverance he had procured him when he convicted the eunuchs, who had conspired against him, he put on that purple garment which the King always wore; and put the chain about his neck; and got on horseback, and went round the city;

[davidmartin]

ah, yes well just a thought it reminded me a bit of "life of brian", sort of like a Monty Python sketch
this "Maris" is just silly. In Syriac it means 'Lord' I been seeing that word all the time in Syriac everywhere there's a Kyrios, well Mar-ya literally the 's' is a Greek ending I guess. Not sure it's too useful if it's just that kind of thing humans engage in I mean telling silly stories and the like. Maybe it's 'not allowed' for a serious author like Philo to have this content and scholars get all protective, shielding him and not allowing his works to have anything frivolous?

[rgprice]

The mocking of the fool isn't even the primary issue, its the connection between Pilate and the desolating sacrilege. Also notice:

"Now the things set up on that occasion were shields, on which there was no representation of any living thing whatever engraved. But now the thing proposed to be erected is a colossal statue. Moreover, then the erection was in the dwelling-house of the governor; but they say, that which is now contemplated is to be in the inmost part of the temple, in the very holy of holies itself

Mark 15:
16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”

In Philo's account, the offense of Pilate was displayed in his dwelling-house - the Praetorium. In the Gospel of Mark, the offense likewise is displayed at the Praetorium.

So the writer of Mark has substituted Jesus for the shields, the offense which foreshadows Pilate's presumed involvement in the future erection of the sacrilegious statue in the Temple.

[DCHindley]

The Greek Alexandrians were trying to insult Agrippa I as he passed from Rome, where he had been staying to be near Gaius, to his territory (former Tetrarchy of Philip). This would be around 39 CE.

Gaius had granted Agrippa I the territory of the tetrarchy but had made his title "king." However, they made a point to withhold his kingship from general population, so when Gaius allowed him to leave Rome the news spread like wildfire.

The Greeks of Alexandria, already feuding with the resident Judeans (for negotiating some rights for themselves), gave in to anger. Thus they found a way to insult Agrippa I and Judeans generally, by mocking in effigy. Poor Carabbas was along for the ride, but yeah it resembles what the Gospels said the Romans did to Jesus. While the whole province was considered the Emperor's private property, Roman citizens of knightly status were only allowed to enter Egypt with the emperor's permission, but I also think that all the productive land was granted to a handful of Roman citizens.

There were still many Greeks from fairly recent Hellenistic times, who were at least respected by the Roman administrators. Some native Egyptians under the Hellenistic rulers had managed to gain recognition as worthy to enter the gymnasium along with Greeks. After the Romans took over, the Greeks found themselves competitors with upwardly mobile native Egyptians, as well as "Resident Foreigners" aka Arameans (including Judeans). Around 5 CE, the Greeks got the upwardly mobile Egyptians kicked out of the gymnasiums, and there were open conflicts with Judeans as well. Henry A Green had written an article 'The Socio-Economic Background of Christianity in Egypt' (Pearson & Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, 1986) about the disenfranchisement of the native Egyptian upwardly mobile class and the social feuds that resulted. Interesting thing is he thinks this provided the social conditions for the development of Christianity in Egypt, citing Max Weber's proposal that conditions such as this cause the rise of "salvation" religions.

So that Alexandrian crowd were probably not even Romans, but Greeks. As he moved on to his new home, the resident Judeans would line the parade route hoping to see a fellow Judean having something good happen for a change. The word that a wagon train was expected to leave downtown Alexandria "soon" would have folks keep an eye out for beginning its journey. If you were a bunch of Greek Roman subjects who wanted to mock one of their competitors, seem to have organized a parade of their own, only the key figures were caricatures of real people. The Judeans hear that something is beginning to move on the main street, come out to see this King of Judean stock pass by, and are surprised by the mockery.

Gosh, folks mocking each other sure is a commonality among human beings of all ages it seems. Still, a group of competing factions in the middle ranks of the city core making quick mocking displays meant to arouse their competitors' emotions, is not same as Roman Auxiliary soldiers mocking a man condemned for making a claim to Judean kingship that had not been approved by the Roman emperor. Question: "King of the Jews?" Answer: "What Jesus claimed to be, that got him executed."

Ever since Archelaus was deposed as not up to snuff, the Romans were managing his former territory as a "caretaker" government, mainly to keep an eye on the Judean temple-state headquartered in Jerusalem. They hoped beyond hope that another Herod the Great was in that family line, so powerful a legacy he had left with his Roman patrons, but alas there never was. Agrippa I was able to get control of the whole she-bang for 4 years (40-44 CE), and appeared to have started to rehabilitate his reputation with his subjects, when his debauched lifestyle (he was known in Rome for his really over the top parties for Gaius) caught up with him, and he died from cancer or gangrene.

The Romans were saying "this guy got what he deserved for saying that." I doubt the Alexandrian Greeks were saying "Agrippa got what he deserved!" Its like apples and oranges.

DCH

(Edit: corrected Agrippa II to Agrippa I)

[DCHindley]

Though I am not persuaded by your assertion that Mark is best understood as an allegory, in case you haven't seen it, there's a recent, somewhat relevant, article that I found fascinating. It presents the letters of response to Harry A. Wolfson's massive work asserting--some say overestimating--huge influence of Philo.

Here's a notice, copied from the Philonica et Neotestamenta blog (Feb. 12 this year) of the good HTR article that I can recommend:

Bringing Philo Home
A very interesting article by René Bloch has been published recently. It deals with the reception of Harry A. Wolfson’s Philo I-II (1947):

René Bloch, ‘ Bringing Philo Home: Responses to Harry A. Wolfson’s Philo (1947) in the Aftermath of World War II,’ Harvard Theological Review 116.1 (2023) 466-489.

Abstract: “In 1947 Harry Austryn Wolfson published his massive and revisionary Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. With the book, Wolfson aimed at proving that Philo was an innovative and highly influential philosopher—by no means an isolated Jew of no consequence to the history of philosophy. As becomes clear from numerous letters written to Wolfson on the occasion of the publication of the book and stored at the Harvard University Archives, for Jewish readers Wolfson’s proposed rehabilitation of Philo could provide a point of orientation. It served as a source of comfort and of pride in the post-war years. While the main thesis of Wolfson’s book, Philo as the precursor of medieval philosophy, was rejected by most scholars of Philo and ancient philosophy, the letters and notes discussed in this article show that much more was at stake than a purely academic discussion.”

https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com ... hilo-home/

Massive is an apt description.

It so happens that I do own both volumes of this book: "Second Printing - Revised" Harvard: Cambridge 1948 (copyright 1947). They are in perfect condition, including dust covers (a little tattered at top & bottom ends, so in clear plastic book cover). There are no underlines, fingerprints or spills, etc., or other marks that I have seen (could be there though). The paper appears to be acid free, there is no obvious discoloration. Every word is printed clear as a bell.

A little history of this particular book. It was a presentation copy ordered for Jerome Curtis, a member of the National Conference of Social Welfare, who gave a talk at a "fellowship night" at the Temple Men's Club (Cleveland) in February 1948. It must have been hard to get at that time, just postwar, as the order was placed in February 1948 and did not arrive until November 1948.

This was immediately after Curtis, President of the Jewish Community Council of Cleveland (OH, USA) had included his letter among others presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations Palestine Commission stating appreciation for their decision to partition Palestine.

I have a "Declassified" summary of UN G.A. "Communications received during the period 1 December 1947 - 30 January 1948" (document is dated 2 February 1948) where this is mentioned.

The name of the Temple Men's Club President is on a sticky note pasted inside and dated to Nov 1948, is hard to make out, but appears to be L C Haas. The books both have a label pasted to the inside of the front cover: "A Book from the Library of Jerome & Iris Curtis."

I bought it in 1990 or so for what seemed like an astronomical amount then ($100), from Old Erie Bookstore in Cleveland, and they probably got it from an estate sale. I was so poor at that time that I had to pay five $20 installments before I could take them home. I think it has historical value for those interested in the Palestinian issue, but Wolfson had a lot to say about that issue too.

It is interesting that Wolfson supervised Morton Smith's PhD dissertation that was later published as Palestinian Parties & Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, a book that even Rabbi Neusner found a valuable contribution to scholarship before he felt Smith turned to the evil side.

Billd89: You appear to have an axe to grind against Wolfson. What, pray tell, has set you off? I know he had his opinions on the subject of splitting Palestine, but of these I am less informed.

DCH

[maryhelena]

Perhaps Philo was remembering past events, resetting them to the time of the new emperor Gaius. 37 c.e. being 100 years from the events of 63 b.c.

"Our temple is destroyed! Gaius has ordered a colossal statue of himself to be erected in the holy of holies,

The statue of Gaius was not installed in the Jerusalem temple. However, the Jerusalem temple was defiled in 63 b.c. - when Pompey entered it's Holy of Holies sanctuary.

6. But there was nothing that affected the nation so much, in the calamities they were then under, as that their holy place, which had been hitherto seen by none, should be laid open to strangers; for Pompey, and those that were about him, went into the temple itself whither it was not lawful for any to enter but the high-priest, and saw what was reposited therein, the candlestick with its lamps, and the table, and the pouring vessels, and the censers, all made entirely of gold, as also a great quantity of spices heaped together, with two thousand talents of sacred money. Yet did not he touch that money, nor any thing else that was there reposited: but he commanded the ministers about the temple, the very next day after he had taken it, to cleanse it and to perform their accustomed sacrifices.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ ... _War_1.10a

Once the Romans controlled Jerusalem, ended Hasmonean independence, then the likelihood of further Roman actions by Jewish rebels, zealots and seditionists would lead to more conflicts. As Josephus said while putting words into the mouth of Titus.

From Pompey to Titus

So Titus charged his soldiers to restrain their rage; and to let their darts alone: and appointed an interpreter between them, which was a sign that he was the conqueror; and first began the discourse, and said, “I hope you, sirs, are now satiated with the miseries of your country; who have not had any just notions either of our great power, or of your own great weakness; but have, like mad-men, after a violent and inconsiderate manner made such attempts, as have brought your people, your city, and your holy house to destruction.You have been the men that have never left off rebelling since Pompey first conquered you. And have since that time made open war with the Romans.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-6.htm

63 b.c. to 70 c.e. are both relevant dates for Jewish history. In Philo's story the statue of the Roman emperor did not get placed in the Jerusalem temple. Basically, by setting his temple statue story in the time of Gaius, Philo is reminding his readers of a historical defilement of the temple - that of 63 b.c.

The gospel story regarding the cleansing of the temple and throwing out the money lenders? A seditious action ? Well, whose head would be on the coins....Caesars would it not......

Roman images in the Jerusalem temple during the time of Tiberius and Pilate.


https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/tib ... C_0035.jpg

Not leaving out the man, Pompey, who defiled the Jerusalem temple in 63 b.c.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey



Or the man,Titus, who destroyed the temple in 70 c.e.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus


Philo and Josephus, a Jewish intellectual and a Jewish historian - what more could one want if one wants to search for, to understand, the philosophical and historical roots of what became christianity. Church 'fathers' ? - the ship had sailed long before they put pen to papyrus. The gospel story stands apart from early christian interpretations of it.

[maryhelena]

here

No biography of Philo has ever been attempted, and there are good reasons for this state of affairs. Philo resists the easy grasp of a biographer because he tells us very little about his own person and virtually nothing about the circumstances of his writing activity. Vital facts, such as his upbringing in Alexandria and the sequence of his works, can therefore be only conjectured. The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, who lived just one generation after Philo and preserved much precious information about other characters, is disappointingly brief about him. His notice merely confirms that Philo was the head of the Jewish embassy to Gaius and that he was “not inexperienced in philosophy.”

Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (p. 1). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

[davidmartin]

or the writings of Philo got reworked and added to well into the 2nd century and reflect opposition to Justin's style of Christianity in these passages. if so it don't tell us much. if a connection can be established so does the direction of dependence surely i mean if its proposed Mark drew from Philo that's just seeing the connection and assuming the dependency is one way only. on the other hand Jewish guys facing opposition in the 2nd century from Christians would have every reason to mock or tell tall tales when they go a chance?