Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Well, my reading of Philo would seem to indicate that he viewed kyrios and theos not as separate gods, but that personalities of God. I believe he equates them to the way that a parent interacts with children. When he is interacting with a good person he presents himself as God and acts as a guiding figure. When dealing with bad people he presents himself as Lord and interacts with them more directly, in cases reprimanding them, etc.

Wrong. Read again. No eisegesis. Powers not gods.

It's not consensus; far from it!

A plurality of makers (Genesis 1:26) belies the false idea of One God, Indivisible in the OT. Christianity's "triune god" is likewise make-believe, offensive to reason; we need to stop bullshitting about this. Father, Son, Angels (Good and Bad) plus Saints are all proof of polytheism in practice: call it what it is. I've seen no clear-cut evidence that Jews in in the 1st C. AD were uniformly monotheistic either, and Philo's varied rationalizations underscore that apparent polytheism. (Admittedly, 'monotheism' was a domineering trend; that's all.)

The so-called Philonic "Two Power" theory is easily proven wrong. Numerous examples have been presented, repeatedly: here, here, and here.

The idea that Philo had one set, consistent system is fallacious. I do think he had his own belief, surely, but he was writing to persuade different audiences. (This is analogous to the discrepancy of a lawyer arguing clients' cases versus his own opinion, and I suppose Philo had been a lawyer in his middle age.)

Whether Philo means distinct 'gods' 'powers' 'hypostases' is likewise debatable. Situations differed, context shifted accordingly too.

If Philo's different audiences were Semitic and Judaic, it remains a near certainty at least some of these systems were blatantly polytheistic. Philo was a Jew writing to other Jews: sectarians, mostly. A pluralistic reality of 1st C Judaism in Egypt and in the far-flung Diaspora is the undeniable and foregone conclusion. And we see that in 'Sethian Jewish' writings -- Josephus attests to the great antiquity of these Siriad Jews and their books c.90 AD. Who knows how many other Jewish sectarian groups existed in Philo's day, the Jesus Moment. Winners 'write history' by burning the losers' books, but many distinct groups might not have been very literate anyway. No record, gone! We cannot see what was, a myriad of Judaisms which were subsumed by circumstances 150 BC - 250 AD. But the NHL and Qumran lead us to believe they were legion, once-upon-a-time.

The controversial nature of Philo's exegesis generally is largely irrelevant to The Point. When we look at examples of a Three-, Four- and maybe Five-fold God-Complex -- admitting what simple IS, apparent from the texts -- we need to explain WHY. Philo is attempting to reconcile different systems to his own opinion or a party-line, to standardize the heterodox synagogues' message. (Ergo, competing 'Jewish' systems existed in the First C. AD.) He does so adequately, smoothing over inconsistencies, re-writing what doesn't fit, erasing or obfuscating what's blatantly heretical. Herein lies the source of your confusion -- and why no consensus is possible. Philo is interpreting other groups' folklore, eisegesis.

One size will never fit all.

In some of Philos' schemas, we can easily perceive:

1) Father
2) Artificer
3) World-Soul
4) Hegemon/Lord

-- then -- adding a Christos overlay, the Divinized Holy Man
5) Redeemer

That gives us five (5) possible 'gods' or divine iterations, even before we allow the Gnostic chaos which emerged c.50 BC.

I am not understanding. Philo didn't totally 'invent' his schema. He was a leader of the Jewish community. I see this with Ismalis, Samaritans etc today. When you are a rich powerful member of a minority you represent that minority community. You aren't free to just 'make up shit.' Correct me if I am wrong. You aren't saying I hope that he DIDN'T represent or express the Jewish tradition in Alexandria and presumably Egypt.

Philo describes multiple schemas. Not one. So, in different works, treating varied schemas, he is effectively trying to reconcile these multiples to a party-line. (This belies the utterly bogus and illogical assumption of a single, unitary Judaism with a fantasized 'One God' retroactively imagined/claimed.) We must understand there were different sects of Judaism in the Diaspora.

In fact, Claudius (c.41 AD) confirms there were at least two competing interest groups within the Alexandrian Jewish "community."

Letter of Claudius on recent anti-Jewish disturbances in Alexandria (November 10, AD 41) P. Lond. VI, 1912 = C. Pap. Jud. II, 153 = Sel. Pap. II, 212 (DDBDP):

Two Alexandrian Jewish groups could organize separate Embassies to Claudius. Jews from the Siriad and Egypt were allies, but nothing required they held identical religious dogmas. Siriad Jews lived in the Sethrum = the Sethians of Josephus.

The diversity of cosmopolitan Judaism we cannot even fathom.

Was Philo aware of a Jesus Christ movement?

He only offers multiple choice answers when he's hiding the right (holy/sacred) answer.

He knew Man the one who met the Patriarchs so yes he knew the one later identified as "Jesus."

lsayre wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:29 pm Was Philo aware of a Jesus Christ movement?

Eusebius believed this; I know of no serious modern scholars who do publicly, but I may be corrected here.

I will present my own novel explanation, affirmatively but qualified. (I have not borrowed from anyone; has anyone else previously explicated this line-of-reasoning?) To be clear: I suppose an historical Jesus MAY have lived but doubt most of the biographical particulars of the Jesus Myth. In any case, our Gospel Jesus Myth was almost completely unknown to Philo Judaeus. However ...

Dr. Carl Jung (following G.R.S. Mead and who else?) believed an historical Jesus was a Therapeut who had studied in Egypt. IF one accepts conventional dating, where Jesus was studying w/ Therapeutae at the Plinthine colony and/or miracle-working in Alexandria at ~Age 25-30, THEN it is quite possible Jesus and Philo might actually have crossed paths c.25-30 AD.

What?! No, this is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Why? Because (to outline this 'novel' hypothesis):
a) Philo describes the "Therapeutae" (obscured Sethians) as though he himself had studied with them, AND
b) Philo maintains ongoing communication and intimate familiarity w/ these local Sons of God (Sethians), SO
c) Philo's reference to one upstart initiate taking the name "Zemach" suggests this 'Branch of Jesse' might be one and the same notorious person as the Sethian Jesus, Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus; FURTHERMORE
d) Because G_Matt. labels Jesus a Nazorean ('Branch', again), because w/ Church Fathers' identify the First Christians as Jessaeans, and because some had already long-concluded that Philo knew this Jesus cult intimately, THEREFORE

e) Philo Judaeus was aware of, at least by hearsay, an individual who fulfills criteria for the data in certain Biblical and extra-Biblical Jesus Myths. Uncertain myths placed Jesus in Egypt; the above would confirm that possibility.

Presumed true, this minor 'fact' alone would explain why the Library of Philo Judaeus was saved: it provided testimony to the 'Life of Jesus' in the lost 'Egyptian' years.

To summarize: circa 25-30 AD a certain religious innovator of the Sethian cult (Jesus, to us) -- become a minor celebrity (or disrupter) amongst the spiritualist Jews of Plinthine, and thereby known to a prolific writer/interested party of this neighborhood -- was mentioned in an important sermon and remembered synagogal lecture by Jewish Philo Judaeus. Philo's corpus was then deliberately saved by Early Christians in Alexandria, much like the Testimonium Flavianum accorded Josephus' history a key reference-point and a decisive reason it survived.

IF TRUE, De Confusione Linguarum, 62-3 becomes exceedingly relevant to the survival of Philo's work.

To repeat: I am not asserting the 'Fact of an Historical Jesus' (I'm not a Xian, I'm a skeptic, etc.), this merely elucidates an hypothesis which firmly ties together Nazorean Jesus, a Jessaean/Sethian cult Founder (identified as a 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' c.100 AD?) with the older Alexandrian tradition (c.150-275 AD) that Philo knew the Earliest Christians. This explains the 'history', such as it is given to us. I don't see how Philo Judaeus could plausibly have 'known the First Christians' in either Rome or Jerusalem, but influential Nazoreans visiting the Sethian colony for psycho-spiritual training would indeed establish this connection to 'the Jesus Type'. Philo was nostalgically rooted in the Therapeuts' neighborhood (I presume his family had a villa there, for generations); he was an exceedingly well-informed individual -- he would know 'what was going on' etc.

I do believe Philo Judaeus knew of the Jessaeans/Nazoreans, intimately. However, the evolving sect was not yet defined as a "Jesus Christ Movement": that take-over would be established about two or three generations later.

That's my explanation, for what I see happened.

Thanks for sharing this billd89.