Mark's use of Philo

[maryhelena]

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?

So - whatever the interpretation of the words attributed to Philo - or whatever adding or subtracting took place - if one wants to use the writings of Philo - then make darn sure one can back up ones interpretation of his words with historical evidence. Same for Josephus - same for the New Testament writers.

History is primary -

[DCHindley]

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.

But why? I can understand telling events that happened near a writer's time, but uses tropes (common jargon) to describe the characters, tropes that originated in somewhat similar circumstances of the past but left their traces on the writer's culture and days.

It does not make sense to me why a writer (Mark) would simply make up an event in "modern times" (to the writer, events supposed to have occurred around 30s CE) that was based on a well known event in 1st Century BCE.

Josephus telescopes Judean-Samaritan relationships by cutting out a generation or two when mentioning Sanballat, satrap of Samaria and the Priest who wanted to start a Samaritan temple, but I don't think he was intending to just make it up as a kind of allegory.

Are you suggesting that Mark was trying to create a mythical religion, from scratch ingredients?

There is a fairly detailed account of the whole affair (several pages of footnotes if strung together) in the revised edition of Schuerer's Jewish People in the Age of you know who. See volume 1.

Agrippa I, who was formerly Gaius' tutor, was newly appointed as king if the Tetrarchy of Philip, but Gaius did not seem to have a good idea of Agrippa's ethnic ways, so I guess it either never came up or the subject avoided. Agrippa I was known for his extravagant parties thrown to impress Gaius.

If Gaius was aware (he may have depended on his periodic briefs of world events from his staff), he was not concerned by the alarm and bloodshed that would surely occur if an attempt was made to erect such a statue. Gaius probably thought that it was time for the Judeans to join the rest of the inhabited world and equate their god with a Roman equivalent (the statue would actually represent Jupiter, in the image of Gaius). In his mind, the appointment of Agrippa was going to facilitate that, but he also fainted when he heard what Gaius wanted to do. Folks like Philo, and Agrippa, knew that open resistance would certainly ensue, with an inevitable Roman military response that would put an end the threat utterly.

Philo's family was "in" with the Roman administration (his uncle, a Roman knight, became a governor, and he was also related to the Judean "Alabarch," sort of an ethnarch over Judean affairs in Alexandria with a local title). I'm pretty sure the factions within the family communicated with one another, either personally or by letter. Agrippa was also "in."

Unfortunately, Philo's embassy was also caught up in local Alexandrian politics (Greek critics of Judean privileges had sent their own competing embassy), and apparently Gaius sided with the Greeks in that. Philo's embassy was ignored.

Agrippa wrote to the emperor and explained what was happening, as perceived by Judeans, would lead to total war.

The Roman governor of Syria even dragged his feet on executing the order, offering a mixture of excuses ("Petronius to Gaius: Greetings, your worship! Well, an arm broke off your colossal statue in transit, so I've ordered a temporary replacement that will be ready in a few months ...") and real reasons (Sabbatical year, taxes will not be collected as usual, but probably not that the Judeans were starting to prepare for armed resistance).

In fact, Josephus mentions a diversion of arms/armor made locally for the Roman auxiliary troops, but "rejected" as inferior, into a private stash. This kind of thing was probably what got Antipas sacked as a tetrarch. Agrippa had tipped off Gaius that Antipas had a huge arms stash squirreled away "off the books" so to speak (hinting that by doing so, Antipas was plotting something with the Parthians). This was all brewing for a while, it seems.

If he had not been assassinated, this war and the resulting destruction to the Judean way of life and institutions like the Temple, would have happened as surely as the Maccabean war started in 167 BCE, which was probably both Philo & Agrippa's points. The situations in 167 BCE and 38 CE were virtually identical: Foreign overlord, for vanity's sake, tried to force Judean institutions to equate their national god to one of the Ruler's pantheon (Zeus/Jupiter), which resulted in long and resource draining wars of nationalistic rebellion. "Why tempt fate, Sir? "

Of course, like some politicians and generals of all ages, Gaius tempted fate. Also like some politicians and generals of all ages, the ones that were not vainly looking at events as opportunities to show off for the boss, were trying to rectify their boss' rash acts. Rather than Syrian Legate Petronius opening his veins at the command of the Emperor (had he not conveniently died), there may well have been another Roman civil war brewing, and I think everyone had figured that out. About 1/3 of the Roman empire was about to break out into open rebellions, Roman as well as Judean. No wonder Gaius was assassinated!

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.

But why? I can understand telling events that happened near a writer's time, but uses tropes (common jargon) to describe the characters, tropes that originated in somewhat similar circumstances of the past but left their traces on the writer's culture and days.

David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?

It does not make sense to me why a writer (Mark) would simply make up an event in "modern times" (to the writer, events supposed to have occurred around 30s CE) that was based on a well known event in 1st Century BCE.

Why not ? Remembrance of past events is part of our human nature. 9/11 - forgotten in a 100 years after the event - I don't think so. As for Philo, Josephus and the gospel writers - they were writing under Roman occupation and could hardly have a public remembrance of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. Don't the Americans have yearly Memorial days - as we in the Uk have Remembrance Sunday once a year.

Are you suggesting that Mark was trying to create a mythical religion, from scratch ingredients?

Not all all. That Mark's story has echoes of Philo's story is, I don't think, controversal.

In an account of Philo (In Flaccum 6.36–41), which is often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria dressed up a certain Carabas as a mock king, and “young men carrying rods on their shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him in imitation of a bodyguard.” In Mark 10:35–37, when James and John ask Jesus to allow them to sit, one at his right and the other at his left, their request implies closest participation in his royal glory. The seats to the right and the left of the king are of the highest rank and honor after the king (see, e.g., 2 Sam 16:6; 1 Kgs 22:19; Ezra 4:29). The most plausible explanation of the Golgotha scene is accordingly that the Romans considered Jesus to be the leader of the men crucified with him.20
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 345). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Agrippa wrote to the emperor and explained what was happening, as perceived by Judeans, would lead to total war.

That Agrippa wrote to Gaius is questionable.

Scholars have questioned the letter’s authenticity and argued that it is too long, too Philonic in style, and too odd in the context of Agrippa’s fainting to be historically true.

Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (p. 43). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Philo has created Agrippa in his own image and playfully speaks through his letter, much like the anonymous author who invented the exchange of letters between Seneca and Paul.

Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (p. 44). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Turning the historical Agrippa into his own mouthpiece, Philo appropriates the image of the king, who enjoyed exceptional popularity not only with Josephus, but also among Jews in general, including the rabbis.38 Philo’s Agrippa is no longer a successful, independent, and widely appreciated politician on behalf of Second Temple Jewry, but a humble extension of Philo’s own religious self. Inventing a letter by Agrippa to Gaius, Philo puts on another mask, namely, that of the Judean king, who turns out to be politically impotent but deeply pious. Given the drastic changes that Agrippa’s image has undergone, Philo must have published his account after Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 CE. He does not anticipate the possibility that the king can respond and publicly clarify that he neither fainted nor wrote the letter attributed to him.

Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (pp. 44-45). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

The image of King Agrippa I, who does appear in Philo’s story, turns out to be enigmatic and fractured, far removed from the effective political figure known from other sources.

Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (p. 45). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Whether or not Philo's image of Gaius story is historical, his use of Agrippa as a mouthpiece suggests more is at stake with his story than an attempt by Gaius to have his statue in the Jerusalem temple. Fundamentally, the point is about Jewish resistance to actions by a Roman ruler. Actions against Rome being, as Josephus puts words into the mouth of Titus - since the time of Pompey. i.e. 63 b.c.

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena wrote today, in part:
"David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?"

Aren't you, maryhelena, judging what a "writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling"?

[maryhelena]

maryhelena wrote today, in part:
"David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?"

Aren't you, maryhelena, judging what a "writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling"?

Like everyone else I offer suggestions..... In my case, with the fundamental focus on history rather than pure imagination.

[StephenGoranson]

To "offer suggestions"--fair enough, for you and "everyone else," e.g., David.
If the Mark writer wrote about history, why not, more plausibly, history that was recent to him?
Rather than "imagination," a suggested, imagined, redated, disguised, Hasmonean history?

[maryhelena]

To "offer suggestions"--fair enough, for you and "everyone else," e.g., David.
If the Mark writer wrote about history, why not, more plausibly, history that was recent to him?
Rather than "imagination," a suggested, imagined, redated, disguised, Hasmonean history?

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

There you go.... Roman history since 63 b.c. A time period that includes Hasmonean history.

[StephenGoranson]

But rebellion isn't central in Mark.

[maryhelena]

But rebellion isn't central in Mark.

A Roman crucifixion for a man proclaiming love your neighbour as yourself.....

[StephenGoranson]

"love your neighbour" vis-a-vis rebellion;
careful of your head