The Catamites of Tiberius?

[billd89]

... I am not saying that the final editor HAS to be T J Alexander, but to me he was a good candidate for the dismissive POV about excesses in entertainment prevalent at Rome. Of course <aaarrrgghhh!!> This *could* be Philo's own words, but I am aware that Philo's works circulated under various names, so I think that posthumous publication by a relative, possibly in more than one edition, is a not-unlikely scenario. Philo and this final editor had different POVs, which is reflected in my analysis. You could argue that these are signs of changes in Philo POV that developed over time. Go ahead, I will not be offended ...

DCH

Everyone's entitled to his opinion, however wrong. Why should I pick apart what someone else wants to believe? (That seems unkind; I'm not.) I don't disagree there were likely scribal edits but what you insist is too far off base.

You are working with Yonge's translation: that's the first strike, IMO. You don't ever reference the Greek text?? Second strike. A quick peek below, and you miss the obvious (**where the Greek text clearly contradicts you**) ... Strike Three.

Back in that file I posted a while ago which attempts to slice and dice Philo's De vita contemplativa, ca. mid 30s CE, to weed out the digressions and side comments of Philo's editor(s).

(Hindley, David C) Analysis of philo's De vita contemplativa 1.1-90 (C D Yonge, vol 1, 1854, analysis 2013-02-12).pdf

I came up with Philo's basic account which was posted at:
https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... 410&page=2

...
Philo's unadorned account of the Therapeutae.pdf

There you go. You insist three writer/editors, colored 'Black', 'Red', 'Blue', to separate different authorships. Here's one glaring error -- a defeat, really -- of your method, but it's illustrative of a failure throughout. (I've no doubt a dozen or more similar examples might be found, looking at the Greek; sorry no, I have zero interest in more homework.) This important term appears as a 'bridge' in all three of your imaginary 'separate' sections, quite coherently in fact, more proof it's basically one author's work and not three separate(s).

In Philo's allegorical writing, οὐσία (here) means 'estate' = archaic Manhood, Masculinity, Patrimony; in other Philonic works, the metaphysical sense, ousia is typically 'Essence'. (Man's Essence also relates naturally to the Divine Goo.) Later in DVC (61), Philo will also use the term in a manner that clearly implies wasting sperm, depleting one's vital essence. So we shall also see how Philo carefully ties all these together across several passages of (throughout) DVC. Important! Manhood is an Estate and an Essence.

First: Can you see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' and a projection, 'Provident Wealth' and 'Blind Wealth', in § 13?

13. εἶτα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀθανάτου καὶ μακαρίας ζωῆς ἵμερον τετελευτηκέναι νομίζοντες ἤδη τὸν θνητὸν βίον ἀπολείπουσι τὰς οὐσίας υἱοῖς ἢ θυγατράσιν εἴτε καὶ ἄλλοις συγγενέσιν, ἑκουσίῳ γνώμῃ προκληρονομούμενοι, οἷς δὲ μὴ συγγενεῖς εἰσιν, ἑταίροις καὶ φίλοις· ἔδει γὰρ τοὺς τὸν βλέποντα πλοῦτον ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβόντας τὸν τυφλὸν παραχωρῆσαι τοῖς ἔτι τὰς διανοίας τυφλώττουσιν.

13. Then, due to the yearning for immortal and blessed life, they presume their mortal existence already over. They willingly bequeath in advance their estates to sons or daughters or other relatives, and to those who are not relatives, companions and friends. For it is fitting that those who have readily accepted the ‘abundance of foresight’ should yield ‘blind riches’ to those whose minds are still shrouded in darkness {Alternate reading: For it is necessary that those who have acquired wealth in vision deliver from blindness those still obscured in their understanding.}

Second: Can you also see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' and (social) 'Wealth' in § 14?

14. Ἀναξαγόραν καὶ Δημόκριτον Ἕλληνες ᾄδουσιν, ὅτι φιλοσοφίας ἱμέρῳ πληχθέντες μηλοβότους εἴασαν γενέσθαι τὰς οὐσίας· ἄγαμαι τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ αὐτὸς γενομένους χρημάτων κρείττονας. ἀλλὰ πόσῳ βελτίονες οἱ μὴ θρέμμασιν ἐμβόσκεσθαι τὰς κτήσεις ἀνέντες, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἀνθρώπων ἐνδείας, συγγενῶν ἢ φίλων, ἐπανορθωσάμενοι καὶ ἐξ ἀπόρων εὐπόρους ἀποφήναντες; ἐκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἀπερίσκεπτον — ἵνα μὴ μανιῶδες ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν, οὓς ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἐθαύμασεν, εἴπω τὸ ἔργον —, τοῦτο δὲ νηφάλιον καὶ μετὰ φρονήσεως ἠκριβωμένον περιττῆς.

14. Greeks sing of Anaxagoras and Democritus who, thus struck by a yearning for philosophy, abandoned their estates to become common sheep pastures. I myself admire these men for becoming superior to wealth. But how much better are those who did not permit their possessions to be grazed by livestock, but instead rectified the needs of men, whether relatives or friends, restoring them to prosperity from poverty? For while the former deed was reckless – not to call it ‘madness’, in men whom Greece has admired – but the latter is sober and prudent, providing without excess.

Thirdly: Can you further see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' and 'Money-Wealth & Possessions' in § 16?

16. πόσῳ δὴ κρείττους οὗτοι καὶ θαυμασιώτεροι, χρησάμενοι μὲν οὐκ ἐλάττοσι ταῖς πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν ὁρμαῖς, μεγαλόνοιαν δὲ ὀλιγωρίας προτιμήσαντες καὶ χαρισάμενοι τὰς οὐσίας, ἀλλὰ μὴ διαφθείραντες, ἵνα καὶ ἑτέρους καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ὠφελήσωσι, τοὺς μὲν ἐν ἀφθόνοις περιουσίαις, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ ἐν τῷ φιλοσοφεῖν; αἱ γὰρ χρημάτων καὶ κτημάτων ἐπιμέλειαι τοὺς χρόνους ἀναλίσκουσι· χρόνου δὲ φείδεσθαι καλόν, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὸν ἰατρὸν Ἱπποκράτην „ὁ μὲν βίος βραχύς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή.

16. How superior and more admirable are those who, though no less enamored with the most Divine Wisdom, and preferring magnanimity to contempt, have given away their estates – not having ruined them – that they might benefit both others and themselves: others with abundant resources, themselves in the pursuit of philosophy? For the attention to wealth and possessions consumes Time, and it is good to be sparing of Time. For even the physician Hippocrates says, 'Life is short, but Art is long.'

Fourthly: Can you lastly see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' -- obviously, his Vital Essence -- versus the earlier 'Money-Wealth & Possessions' (§ 14), in § 61?

61. λυμηνάμενος δὲ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν καὶ εἰς ἐρωμένης τάξιν καὶ διάθεσιν ἀγαγὼν ἐζημίωσε καὶ τοὺς ἐραστὰς περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα, σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ οὐσίαν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τοῦ παιδεραστοῦ τὸν μὲν νοῦν τετάσθαι πρὸς τὰ παιδικά, πρὸς ταῦτα μόνον ὀξυδορκοῦντα, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἴδιά τε καὶ κοινὰ τυφλούμενον, τὸ δὲ σῶμα ὑπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ ἀποτυγχάνοιτο, συντήκεσθαι, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν ἐλαττοῦσθαι διχόθεν, ἔκ τε ἀμελείας καὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν ἐρώμενον ἀναλωμάτων.

61. Having debased their childhoods, leading them into the role and condition of passive partners, he has even harmed boy-lovers in the most vital things – Body, Soul, and Essence. For a pederast's mind must be wholly focused on his boy-loves, with keen eyes only for them and blind to all else, both private and public affairs. So his body wastes away by Craving, especially if left unquenched, and his {Vital} Estate is depleted in two ways: by neglect, and by the costs towards his beloved boy.

These distinctions may be subtle in your eyes, but Philo IS using different words, exquisitely nuanced to his clever, structured argument against "Greeks" (aka alcoholic pedophiles). Effeminates who waste their seed in little boys' fannies = the 'wasting of earthly estates' (Proto-Malthusian anxieties, etc.). Ergo, we now see @ § 14 a clear parallel to § 61, and where Philo (One Author) was going with this elaboration from the start. Jewish money matters? Ahh, no.

62. παραφύεται δὲ καὶ μεῖζον ἄλλο πάνδημον κακόν· ἐρημίαν γὰρ πόλεων καὶ σπάνιν τοῦ ἀρίστου γένους ἀνθρώπων καὶ στείρωσιν καὶ ἀγονίαν τεχνάζονται, οἳ μιμοῦνται τοὺς ἀνεπιστήμονας τῆς γεωργίας, σπείροντες ἀντὶ τῆς. βαθυγείου πεδιάδος ὑφάλμους ἀρούρας ἢ λιθώδη καὶ ἀπόκροτα χωρία, ἃ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν πεφυκέναι βλαστάνειν καὶ τὰ καταβληθέντα φθείρει σπέρματα.

62. And another, greater evil grows alongside it, affecting the people as a whole: cities are depopulated, the best kind of men grow scarce, and sterility and childlessness ensue. They would copy those ignorant of agriculture, sowing in salty marshes or stony, hard ground instead of the deep, fertile plain – places not only unfit by nature to produce any growth but also wasting seeds sown in them.

Conclusion: These οὐσία sections (13,14,16 and 61) are all tied together by Philo's consistent rhetoric & terminology. He's alluding to the True 'Provident Savings' (Divine Wealth) of the Jews, in his similes, metaphors, yaddi-yadda, in contradistinction to the base, plutonic riches of the Greeks/Romans. Ousia is Man's Estate, masculinity, etc. which those nasty Hellenic buggers have "squandered." And THIS is Philo's argument; it isn't even very subtle.

My point here? Your own 'Black', 'Red', 'Blue' scheme -- to "weed out the digressions and side comments of Philo's editors" -- misses all of this. No: you would not even allow these sections to co-exist in the same (Author's) document, you could not see how Philo has built-up his key argument about the Jews' (Moral) Wealth, much less admit the integrity of a unitary work as shown here. Why? Please revisit your assumptions and method. You've lost the plot, ensnared by a fervid historical fantasy in your mind's eye.

Honestly: I'm sorry, and not gloating, to show you this. But IF your thesis were sound (it isn't), you would still need to prove it in the original Greek, NOT YONGE. Heads Up! That Victorian prude has bowdlerized his translation: you cannot even imagine how NASTY the AI Claude3 gets. It even hallucinates pornography in Ancient Greek.

[DCHindley]

I shall go and open my veins in a hot bath ...

Or not.

I will say that I do not buy into the mystical beliefs projected by romantic moderns, scholars or not, into Philo's work.

Show me such an overarching symbolic understanding of human psychology in an Authority on Philo, such as Runia.

I am not talking about random use of words such as ousian and the terms for wealth, etc., as you have not shown these to be used in a systematic way throughout his works. Just like Plato, who vacillated between use of terms for his concepts and seems to occasionally change his mind, Philo seems to be much the same.

I remember all the talk, some years ago, about "Anatol" (East, rising sun) and how Philo supposedly conceived of a celestial crucifixion, all on the basis of using a figure of a spread eagle man to describe how the universe is organized, like cogs if you will, in a time before cogs and gears were well known.

BTW, I have been using Greek originals for mush of my private "research," (well, musings) for over 30 years. I have access to Perseus too, but in this case, I did not think it needed to be that fine an analysis.

Member mbuckley has told me privately he had played with my analysis and compared to Conybeare's list of words not otherwise attested in Philo, but did not find a pattern that supported my segregation of text. There is another one he mentioned, Leisegang's "(imperfect)" index verborum, which he might use as a cross check if he finds the time & inclination. I wish him goodspeed.

My opinion is that the sample size (90 sections) is relatively small, so a statistical comparison becomes difficult.

DCH

[billd89]

Don't open your veins, and spare the hemlock. We live now. The document that survived was surely 'corrupted' in little ways by other hands. I believe that possibility is obvious for everything that came down as canon literature. That doesn't make it False to my mind, however.

I remember all the talk, some years ago, about "Anatol" (East, rising sun) and how Philo supposedly conceived of a celestial crucifixion, all on the basis of using a figure of a spread eagle man to describe how the universe is organized, like cogs if you will, in a time before cogs and gears were well known.

Ousia is hardly a random word though. I've also posted on Anatole before; I firmly believe the Antikythera Mechanism is real; something that advanced would have been manufactured by brassworkers at Alexandria; Philo Judaeus would have toyed with or even owned such technology.

Personally, I'm not persuaded by 'random' hunches; however, where I see clusters of evidence, I suppose the (accessible) truth is nearby. So we can figure it out, even grappling with False Starts and Near Misses.

AI will soon reach a level where the precise determination of interpolations vs. original content becomes statistically relevant and (mostly) reliable; I have faith we will know, soon. (People can & will still believe nonsense they read, e.g. that Antifa occupied Congress on 1/6/20, because brainwashing/insanity. That won't change.)

I know that primitive stylistic software was available more than 15 years ago. What's been improved? I haven't tested it yet, but Claude3 says:

Yes, I am capable of analyzing two ~500 word essays and providing an assessment of whether they were likely written by the same author or by two different authors.

This type of analysis is known as authorship attribution or stylometric analysis. It involves examining various linguistic features and stylistic elements of the texts to determine if they share common characteristics that suggest a single author, or if there are sufficient differences to indicate multiple authors.

Some of the factors I would consider in this analysis include:

Vocabulary and word choice
Sentence structure and complexity
Use of punctuation and other grammatical elements
Stylistic quirks or idiosyncrasies
Tone and voice
Thematic similarities or differences

By carefully comparing these elements across the two essays, I can provide an informed opinion on the likelihood of single or multiple authorship. However, it's important to note that authorship attribution is a complex task, and there is always some degree of uncertainty involved, especially with relatively short texts.

Additionally, factors such as an author intentionally altering their style, the influence of genre conventions, or the use of ghostwriters or collaborators can complicate the analysis.

Despite these challenges, I am confident in my ability to provide a thoughtful and reasoned assessment based on the available linguistic evidence. If you have two ~500 word essays you would like me to compare, please feel free to share them with me, and I will do my best to determine whether they are likely the work of the same author or two different authors.

However, it adds in another Reply that it's capabilities in Ancient Greek is not as robust, for a number of reasons given.

[billd89]

I will say that I do not buy into the mystical beliefs projected by romantic moderns, scholars or not, into Philo's work.

Really?

Quod Deus sit immutabilis 46. ψυχῆς γὰρ ὄψις οὗτος οἰκείαις περιλαμπόμενος αὐγαῖς, δι’ ὧν ὁ πολὺς καὶ βαθὺς ζόφος, ὃν κατέχεεν ἄγνοια τῶν πραγμάτων, ἀνασκίδναται. τοῦτο τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ εἶδος οὐκ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν στοιχείων, ἐξ ὧν τὰ ἄλλα ἀπετελεῖτο, διεπλάσθη, καθαρωτέρας δὲ καὶ ἀμείνονος ἔλαχε τῆς οὐσίας, ἐξ ἧς αἱ θεῖαι φύσεις ἐδημιουργοῦντο· παρὸ καὶ μόνον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν εἰκότως ἄφθαρτον ἔδοξεν εἶναι διάνοια.

Quod Deus sit immutabilis 46: "For this {Nous} is the Soul’s Eye, illumined by its own rays, by which the profound, abysmal Darkness (which Ignorance of Reality has poured out) is dispelled. This Psychical Form was not molded from the same elements of which the other things were completed, but obtained a purer, better Essence (Ousia), from which the divine natures were created. Therefore, among the elements of our being this alone has rightly been considered indestructible: Dianoia (Intellect)."

Ya, I do call all that jazz "mystical belief"; I cannot envision it as anything but. And it's called "literal translation" -- not "romantic projection." But if you insist on remaining blind, how can I make you see? (O, the eternal 'Lost Cause.')

Bonus Points: Name this Eye ... "Hi, Dave!"

I am not talking about random use of words such as ousian and the terms for wealth, etc., as you have not shown these to be used in a systematic way throughout his works ...

It isn't "random," though - it's quite deliberate. Words have, ya know, like, ummm, meanings. And a topic doesn't need to appear in every Philonic work to be topical and relevant to the metaphysics Philo is getting at in DVC.

But I've shown how relevant Ousia CERTAINLY is in DVC; can you find more examples in Philo's other works? Even if (you say) Wolfson can't? (Hint: if Wolfson did not, that doesn't confirm no such examples exist.) Obviously, you have to re-examine, re-do your work.

Thanks, Claude3. Ousia in:

De Cherubim 65. ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ νομίσαι θεοῦ πάντα κτήματα, ὑπέλαβεν ἑαυτοῦ, μηδ' αὑτὸν ἔχειν βεβαίως δυνάμενος, ἀλλὰ μηδ' ὅστις ἐστὶ τὴν οὐσίαν εἰδώς.

De Cherubim 65: "65: {Cain}, instead of believing that all belongings are God's, he assumed them to be his own, but being incapable of firmly grasping his own self and unaware who he is in essence."

De Cherubim 114. τίς δέ ἐστι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν

De Cherubim 114: "And what can we say [the Soul] is, in essence?"

De Somniis 1.30. ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ τὸ τέταρτον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς, ὁ ἡγεμὼν νοῦς, καταληπτός ἐστιν; οὐ δήπου. τί γὰρ αὐτὸν οἰόμεθα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι; πνεῦμα ἢ αἷμα ἢ σῶμα συνόλως — ἀλλ’ οὐ σῶμα, ἀσώματον δὲ λεκτέον — ἢ πέρας ἢ εἶδος ἢ ἀριθμὸν ἢ ἐνδελέχειαν ἢ ἁρμονίαν ἢ τί τῶν ὄντων;

De Somniis 1.30: "So, is the fourth part within us, Sovereign Mind, perceptible? Certainly not. For what do we suppose it to be, according to its essence? Pneuma or Blood or Body as a composite — but it is not a body, but must be said to be incorporeal — or Limit, or Form, or Number, or Plenitude, or Harmony, or what among Existent Beings?"

De Somniis 2.45. δίδωσι γὰρ οὗτος τῇ ψυχῇ σφραγῖδα (Gen. 38, 18), πάγκαλον δῶρον, διδάσκων ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀσχημάτιστον οὖσαν τὴν τῶν πάντων οὐσίαν ἐσχημάτισε καὶ ἀτύπωτον ἐτύπωσε καὶ ἄποιον ἐμόρφωσε καὶ τελειώσας τὸν ὅλον ἐσφράγισε κόσμον εἰκόνι καὶ ἰδέᾳ, τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ.

De Somniis 2.45: "For upon the Psyche [Judah] bestows a Seal (Genesis 38:18), a most exquisite gift, teaching that God has formed the formless essence of All, and has imprinted the unmarked, and has qualified the qualityless and, having perfected the whole, has emblazoned the Cosmos with the icon and ideal of his own Logos."

... and so on. Indeed, after this quick look and incomplete sample -- there are probably a dozen or so more, in the other books -- we are CERTAIN that Ousia IS "used in a systematic way throughout his works." Why? It's a key metaphysical concept. Whether or not someone can/cannot see that, grasp that, accept that... 'Oh, well!'