Mark's use of Philo
Re: Mark's use of Philo
This hasn't really gone where I was hoping. I'd like to address the matter of literary dependence independently of trying to explain why or how the Gospel writer would have used this material. But, I'll go ahead and offer my theory on that anyway.
Its well known that Deterring has argued that the desolating sacrilege relates to the defilement of the temple by Hadrian in the 130s.
I've long thought that this is too simplistic, and why then would the writer be incorporating Pilate anyway? Why not just write a story about Jesus being crucified under some later regime closer to the First Jewish-Roman War, or even after?
But I think that Deterring may be right, however what the writer is doing is interpreting the Hadrianic defilement through the lens of the Caligula Crisis, viewing the words of Philo as an unfulfilled prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled in an unexpected way.
So yes, the writer was writing after the Second Jewish-Roman War, but set his story during the reign of Pilate because he was treating Philo's prediction of doom when a statue was placed in the temple as a prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled by Hadrian.
Its well known that Deterring has argued that the desolating sacrilege relates to the defilement of the temple by Hadrian in the 130s.
I've long thought that this is too simplistic, and why then would the writer be incorporating Pilate anyway? Why not just write a story about Jesus being crucified under some later regime closer to the First Jewish-Roman War, or even after?
But I think that Deterring may be right, however what the writer is doing is interpreting the Hadrianic defilement through the lens of the Caligula Crisis, viewing the words of Philo as an unfulfilled prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled in an unexpected way.
So yes, the writer was writing after the Second Jewish-Roman War, but set his story during the reign of Pilate because he was treating Philo's prediction of doom when a statue was placed in the temple as a prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled by Hadrian.
Re: Mark's use of Philo
I think MH is applying "Reader Response" criticism.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 11:06 am 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"?
DCH
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2962
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Mark's use of Philo
DCHindley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:18 pmI think MH is applying "Reader Response" criticism.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 11:06 am 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"?
DCH
Yep, consumer of scholarly arguments - differentiating the insightful from the duds.....the useful from the useless.....the historical facts from the imaginative illusions.....
Consumer rights in order to make the marketplace of ideas a safer place - always on the lookout for ideas that lead the unaware down that Primrose Path.....
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2962
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Mark's use of Philo
Wow - so now Philo is being viewed as a prophet.....wonders will never cease.....rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 12:53 pm This hasn't really gone where I was hoping. I'd like to address the matter of literary dependence independently of trying to explain why or how the Gospel writer would have used this material. But, I'll go ahead and offer my theory on that anyway.
Its well known that Deterring has argued that the desolating sacrilege relates to the defilement of the temple by Hadrian in the 130s.
I've long thought that this is too simplistic, and why then would the writer be incorporating Pilate anyway? Why not just write a story about Jesus being crucified under some later regime closer to the First Jewish-Roman War, or even after?
But I think that Deterring may be right, however what the writer is doing is interpreting the Hadrianic defilement through the lens of the Caligula Crisis, viewing the words of Philo as an unfulfilled prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled in an unexpected way.
So yes, the writer was writing after the Second Jewish-Roman War, but set his story during the reign of Pilate because he was treating Philo's prediction of doom when a statue was placed in the temple as a prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled by Hadrian.
Re: Mark's use of Philo
Checking the Index IV "Christian Works and Authors," the NT works are cited as follows (total #, or in case of Mark the NT verses and corresponding volume,page):
But IF Mark was somehow drawing on Philo, I'd have expected Wolfson to have cited Mark more than 3 times. There could be overlap with double & triple traditions (Mt/Mk/Lk), but look at how many parallels Wolfson found with concepts expressed in Mt & Lk. If Philo affected Mark, he also seems to have affected Mt & Lk & John. Strangely, despite John's prologue, there are only 3 citations from Jn.
I'll try to get more granular.
DCH
Since these authors works are of greatly differing lengths, the relative frequency isn't going to tell us much, but I did list these authors more or less Chronologically.Matthew: 8
Mark: 3 (11:27=ii,349; 12:26-27=i,397; 14:22=ii,241)
Luke: 6
John: 3
Acts: 5
Romans: 3
1 Corinthians: 4
Galatians: 2
Ephesians: 1
Colossians: 1
1 Thessalonians: 1
Hebrews: 1
Jude: 1
Revelation: 1
Tatian: 2
Justin Martyr: 12
Irenaeus: 3
Clement of Alexandria: abt 20, (19 from Stromata)
Origen: abt 22
Hippolytus: 1
Tertullian: 2
Eusebius: abt 11
Jerome: 3
But IF Mark was somehow drawing on Philo, I'd have expected Wolfson to have cited Mark more than 3 times. There could be overlap with double & triple traditions (Mt/Mk/Lk), but look at how many parallels Wolfson found with concepts expressed in Mt & Lk. If Philo affected Mark, he also seems to have affected Mt & Lk & John. Strangely, despite John's prologue, there are only 3 citations from Jn.
I'll try to get more granular.
DCH
Re: Mark's use of Philo
The following are Wolfson's citations of NT books or the works of Church Fathers. I stopped with Jerome, and did not even try to include citations from Judean sources like Tanakh or Pseudepigrapha. Someone else will have to add the bells & whistles:
Seq |
NT or Early Chr Father Bk |
Bk.ch.sec/Ch.vs |
Where it is in Wolfson |
---|---|---|---|
127 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 13.12 | i,020 |
128 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 13.12 | i,022 |
118 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | i,022 |
69 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.09 | i,025 |
112 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.7 | i,080 |
119 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | i,081 |
113 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.7 | i,096 |
62 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.15 | i,099 |
68 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 2.19 | i,099 |
110 | Eusebius: 21 | Hist Ecc 2.4.3 | i,099 |
131 | Jerome: 3 | De Veris Ill, 11 | i,099 |
52 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 113 | i,134 |
53 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 118 | i,134 |
54 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 135 | i,134 |
50 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 76 | i,134 |
82 | Origen: 23 | In Cant, 1 | i,154 |
59 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.05 | i,157 |
55 | Irenaeus: 3 | Adv Her, 4.09.1 | i,158 |
56 | Irenaeus: 3 | Adv Her, 4.32.2 | i,158 |
57 | Irenaeus: 3 | Adv Her, 4.35.2 | i,158 |
86 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 4.38 | i,159 |
58 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Coh ad Gentes, 100.3 | i,160 |
73 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.14 | i,160 |
44 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 1.59 | i,160 |
45 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 1.60 | i,160 |
46 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 2.10 | i,160 |
47 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 02 | i,160 |
48 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 07 | i,160 |
60 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.05 | i,161 |
61 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.07 | i,161 |
76 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.07 | i,161 |
78 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.13 | i,161 |
79 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.17 | i,161 |
80 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 7.02 | i,161 |
125 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 11.1 | i,161 |
15 | Luke: 6 | 16.17 | i,187 |
2 | Matthew: 8 | 05.18 | i,187 |
114 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.7 | i,194 |
102 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 4.1.16 | i,195 |
20 | John: 3 | 17.16 | i,196 |
99 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 2.3.6 | i,196 |
96 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.2.6 | i,239 |
111 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 7.21 | i,301 |
106 | Tertullian: 2 | Apologeticus, 100.39 | i,317 |
98 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 2.2.4-5 | i,323 |
41 | Tatian: 2 | Adv Grae 05 | i,323 |
115 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.11 | i,338 |
105 | Hippolytus: 1 | Ref Om Hear, 9.10 | i,338 |
117 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.12 | i,345 |
116 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.11 | i,350 |
85 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 2.48-53 | i,353 |
103 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 4.1.16 | i,353 |
107 | Tertullian: 2 | De Res Carn, 100.11 | i,354 |
37 | 1 Thessalonians: 1 | 04.16 | i,377 |
39 | Jude: 1 | 01.09 | i,377 |
16 | Luke: 6 | 20.37-38 | i,397 |
10 | Mark: 3 | 12.26-27 | i,397 |
4 | Matthew: 8 | 22.32 | I,397 |
130 | Jerome: 3 | In Ecc, 1.6 | i,417 |
91 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.0.1 | i,417 |
97 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.7.2-3 | i,417 |
42 | Tatian: 2 | Adv Grae 12 | i,417 |
49 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 75 | i,418 |
101 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 3.5.3 | i,419 |
43 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 1.44 | i,437 |
100 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 3.1.6 | i,437 |
129 | Jerome: 3 | Adv Pel. | i,460 |
28 | Romans: 3 | 11.26-29 | i,461 |
108 | Eusebius: 21 | Hist Ecc 2.4.2 | i.100 |
81 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 7.16 | ii,062 |
32 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 12.10-11 | ii,064 |
22 | Acts: 5 | 10.03 | ii,064 |
25 | Acts: 5 | 27.23 | ii,064 |
35 | Ephesians: 1 | 03.05 | ii,064 |
12 | Luke: 6 | 01.11 | ii,064 |
13 | Luke: 6 | 01.13 | ii,064 |
1 | Matthew: 8 | 01.20 | ii,064 |
40 | Revelation: 1 | 01.01 | ii,064 |
30 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 12.04 | ii,066 |
31 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 12.10 | ii,066 |
51 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 82 | ii,067 |
71 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.12 | ii,113 |
126 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 11.18 | ii,113 |
89 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 7.42 | ii,113 |
90 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 7.43 | ii,113 |
84 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 1.24 | ii,114 |
23 | Acts: 5 | 17.23 | ii,115 |
36 | Colossians: 1 | 01.15 | ii,151 |
18 | John: 3 | 01.18 | ii,151 |
19 | John: 3 | 02.24 | ii,151 |
88 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 7.27 | ii,151 |
92 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.0.8 | ii,151 |
93 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.0.9 | ii,151 |
94 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.1.1-4 | ii,151 |
74 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.14 | ii,152 |
72 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.12 | ii,154 |
95 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.1.5 | ii,154 |
66 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 2.02 | ii,155 |
70 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.11 | ii,155 |
109 | Eusebius: 21 | Hist Ecc 2.4.2 | ii,158 |
77 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.08 | ii,161 |
29 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 11.14 | ii,241 |
17 | Luke: 6 | 22.17 | ii,241 |
11 | Mark: 3 | 14.22 | ii,241 |
7 | Matthew: 8 | 26.26 | ii,241 |
120 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,242 |
14 | Luke: 6 | 12.28 | ii,250 |
3 | Matthew: 8 | 05.19 | ii,277 |
121 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,290 |
122 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,291 |
123 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,292 |
26 | Romans: 3 | 02.14 | ii,307 |
64 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.28 | ii,308 |
65 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.29 | ii,308 |
67 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 2.18 | ii,308 |
87 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 5.37 | ii,308 |
83 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 1.18 | ii,309 |
104 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 4.1.17 | ii,309 |
21 | Acts: 5 | 04.23 | ii,349 |
9 | Mark: 3 | 11.27 | ii,349 |
8 | Matthew: 8 | 28.41 | ii,349 |
124 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,396 |
63 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.26 | ii,431 |
75 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.14 | ii,431 |
24 | Acts: 5 | 20.28 | ii,432 |
33 | Galatians: 2 | 03.29 | ii,432 |
34 | Galatians: 2 | 06.16 | ii,432 |
27 | Romans: 3 | 08.04 | ii,432 |
38 | Hebrews: 1 | 04.14 | ii,433 |
5 | Matthew: 8 | 23.21 | ii,433 |
6 | Matthew: 8 | 25.34 | ii,433 |
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Feb 18, 2024 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Mark's use of Philo
This is same info, although sorted as the initial list was, by Wolfson's citations of these Christian authors/books, in more or less chronological order for early Christian fathers. Some totals of citations by books were off a bit after deciding to split some of them that were discussed in two places. You can see where this has occurred.
Seq |
NT or Early Chr Father Bk |
Bk.ch.sec/Ch.vs |
Where it is in Wolfson |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Matthew: 8 | 01.20 | ii,064 |
2 | Matthew: 8 | 05.18 | i,187 |
3 | Matthew: 8 | 05.19 | ii,277 |
4 | Matthew: 8 | 22.32 | i,397 |
5 | Matthew: 8 | 23.21 | ii,433 |
6 | Matthew: 8 | 25.34 | ii,433 |
7 | Matthew: 8 | 26.26 | ii,241 |
8 | Matthew: 8 | 28.41 | ii,349 |
9 | Mark: 3 | 11.27 | ii,349 |
10 | Mark: 3 | 12.26-27 | i,397 |
11 | Mark: 3 | 14.22 | ii,241 |
12 | Luke: 6 | 01.11 | ii,064 |
13 | Luke: 6 | 01.13 | ii,064 |
14 | Luke: 6 | 12.28 | ii,250 |
15 | Luke: 6 | 16.17 | i,187 |
16 | Luke: 6 | 20.37-38 | i,397 |
17 | Luke: 6 | 22.17 | ii,241 |
18 | John: 3 | 01.18 | ii,151 |
19 | John: 3 | 02.24 | ii,151 |
20 | John: 3 | 17.16 | i,196 |
21 | Acts: 5 | 04.23 | ii,349 |
22 | Acts: 5 | 10.03 | ii,064 |
23 | Acts: 5 | 17.23 | ii,115 |
24 | Acts: 5 | 20.28 | ii,432 |
25 | Acts: 5 | 27.23 | ii,064 |
26 | Romans: 3 | 02.14 | ii,307 |
27 | Romans: 3 | 08.04 | ii,432 |
28 | Romans: 3 | 11.26-29 | i,461 |
29 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 11.14 | ii,241 |
30 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 12.04 | ii,066 |
31 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 12.10 | ii,066 |
32 | 1 Corinthians: 4 | 12.10-11 | ii,064 |
33 | Galatians: 2 | 03.29 | ii,432 |
34 | Galatians: 2 | 06.16 | ii,432 |
35 | Ephesians: 1 | 03.05 | ii,064 |
36 | Colossians: 1 | 01.15 | ii,151 |
37 | 1 Thessalonians: 1 | 04.16 | i,377 |
38 | Hebrews: 1 | 04.14 | ii,433 |
39 | Jude: 1 | 01.09 | i,377 |
40 | Revelation: 1 | 01.01 | ii,064 |
41 | Tatian: 2 | Adv Grae 05 | i,323 |
42 | Tatian: 2 | Adv Grae 12 | i,417 |
43 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 1.44 | i,437 |
44 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 1.59 | i,160 |
45 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 1.60 | i,160 |
46 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Apology, 2.10 | i,160 |
47 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 02 | i,160 |
48 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 07 | i,160 |
49 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 75 | i,418 |
50 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 76 | i,134 |
51 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 82 | ii,067 |
52 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 113 | i,134 |
53 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 118 | i,134 |
54 | Justin Martyr: 12 | Dialogue, 135 | i,134 |
55 | Irenaeus: 3 | Adv Her, 4.09.1 | i,158 |
56 | Irenaeus: 3 | Adv Her, 4.32.2 | i,158 |
57 | Irenaeus: 3 | Adv Her, 4.35.2 | i,158 |
58 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Coh ad Gentes, 100.3 | i,160 |
59 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.05 | i,157 |
60 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.05 | i,161 |
61 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.07 | i,161 |
62 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.15 | i,099 |
63 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.26 | ii,431 |
64 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.28 | ii,308 |
65 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 1.29 | ii,308 |
66 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 2.02 | ii,155 |
67 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 2.18 | ii,308 |
68 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 2.19 | i,099 |
69 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.09 | i,025 |
70 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.11 | ii,155 |
71 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.12 | ii,113 |
72 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.12 | ii,154 |
73 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.14 | i,160 |
74 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.14 | ii,152 |
75 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 5.14 | ii,431 |
76 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.07 | i,161 |
77 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.08 | ii,161 |
78 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.13 | i,161 |
79 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 6.17 | i,161 |
80 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 7.02 | i,161 |
81 | Clement of Alex: 24 | Strom, 7.16 | ii,062 |
82 | Origen: 23 | In Cant, 1 | i,154 |
83 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 1.18 | ii,309 |
84 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 1.24 | ii,114 |
85 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 2.48-53 | i,353 |
86 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 4.38 | i,159 |
87 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 5.37 | ii,308 |
88 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 7.27 | ii,151 |
89 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 7.42 | ii,113 |
90 | Origen: 23 | Cont Celsum, 7.43 | ii,113 |
91 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.0.1 | i,417 |
92 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.0.8 | ii,151 |
93 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.0.9 | ii,151 |
94 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.1.1-4 | ii,151 |
95 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.1.5 | ii,154 |
96 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.2.6 | i,239 |
97 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 1.7.2-3 | i,417 |
98 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 2.2.4-5 | i,323 |
99 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 2.3.6 | i,196 |
100 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 3.1.6 | i,437 |
101 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 3.5.3 | i,419 |
102 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 4.1.16 | i,195 |
103 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 4.1.16 | i,353 |
104 | Origen: 23 | De Princ, 4.1.17 | ii,309 |
105 | Hippolytus: 1 | Ref Om Hear, 9.10 | i,338 |
106 | Tertullian: 2 | Apologeticus, 100.39 | i,317 |
107 | Tertullian: 2 | De Res Carn, 100.11 | i,354 |
108 | Eusebius: 21 | Hist Ecc 2.4.2 | i.100 |
109 | Eusebius: 21 | Hist Ecc 2.4.2 | ii,158 |
110 | Eusebius: 21 | Hist Ecc 2.4.3 | i,099 |
111 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 7.21 | i,301 |
112 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.7 | i,080 |
113 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.7 | i,096 |
114 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.7 | i,194 |
115 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.11 | i,338 |
116 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.11 | i,350 |
117 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.12 | i,345 |
118 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | i,022 |
119 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | i,081 |
120 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,242 |
121 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,290 |
122 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,291 |
123 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,292 |
124 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 8.14 | ii,396 |
125 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 11.1 | i,161 |
126 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 11.18 | ii,113 |
127 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 13.12 | i,020 |
128 | Eusebius: 21 | Pr Ev, 13.12 | i,022 |
129 | Jerome: 3 | Adv Pel. | i,460 |
130 | Jerome: 3 | In Ecc, 1.6 | i,417 |
131 | Jerome: 3 | De Veris Ill, 11 | i,099 |
Re: Mark's use of Philo
I'm not sure what these lists of citations have to do with anything...
Re: Agrippa, Portrayed by a Jewish Fool
True, the version we've received has this prophecy, but we have no idea for how long or extensively such an 'oracle' was trafficked about. IF Philo recorded this, an actual threat -- rather than a popular fable which HAD to be included in the story -- the lineage of prognostication is still problematic, more complicated than his "history" reveals. To wit, an ancient Jewish fear, generations-old: the Jews KNEW what the Romans did to others' temples. And that's what the Defilement "Meme" is all about: Romans set up their own statues in vassals' temples, inevitably. Ergo, (Jewish) dread, foreboding and oracular wackiness explains your un-complicated mystery.
Might there even be faint echoes of such a Prophetic Dread in the NT, w/o any correspondence to Philo? Quite possibly. Unfortunately, however, none of this -- vague speculation -- supports any claim to Mark's dependence on Philo.
Philo's history doesn't say that, tho.An association between Pilate and the impending erection of the sacrilegious statue that will surely bring doom upon the Jews.
But yet, the erection of the statue never happened.
It didn't have to. Certainly, you're familiar with unfulfilled prophecies; don't we all 'get' the Doomsday Meme, anyway? It doesn't even have to happen for many people to believe it did. The socio-psychology is what's important here: a Jewish Dread.
Who would know about the incident with the mocking of the "Jewish king" other than from the writings of Philo? Explain the relevance of this "meme", in what time period, its relation or lack of relation to the works of Philo?
Philo is the exploiter, not the begettor, of this shop-worn trope. The mocking of the King, by a fool is an ancient cross-cultural archetype; it was present in Egypt thousands of years before Philo. And even flourished later, in Renaissance Europe. As the Met's catalogue says: "In the manner of a ventriloquist’s doll, the bauble head could say things that the jester might not want to say himself. A counterpart to the king’s scepter, the bauble cast the fool as a faux ruler." Sound familiar? It's a kind of pantomime.
So the personification of cosmic disorder and confusion, Egyptian god Seth, was depicted as a Fool; his followers were likewise portrayed as rowdy destructive foreigners: see Hans Goedicke, "Seth as a Fool" in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 47 [1961]. Since Jews were long-associated w/ Seth-Baal, the comparison is not only apt it's also explanatory: the "Jewish King" was a classic target buffoon for Graeco-Egyptians. And for all we know -- if antisemitism was then as pervasive as some scholars would argue -- the "Jewish Fool" theme was probably Romanized elsewhere during this period also.
But in Alexandria, such a symbolic coronation has deeper meaning and requires greater clarification. I am more curious about (i.e. want more evidence of) the term "Maris" c.37 AD, and the interpretation of papyrus leaf crown and scepter. Weren't those symbols of the Judeo-Hermetic scholars at the Alexandrian Library? Again, Thoth and Seth have Jewish parallels in this conflation. See Patrick Boylan, Thoth, the Hermes of Egypt: A Study of Some Aspects of Theological Thought [1922], p.143:
It has been shown already that Thoth played a great part in Egyptian court-ceremonial. The fixing of the royal names, the determining of the years of reign, the foretelling of royal feasts and victories -- all these are functions assigned to Thoth in the coronation-ceremonies. They are all fully illustrated on the monuments. In the actual coronation-ceremonies a priest, of course, took the part of Thoth. Even in the joyful liturgy of coronation there are echoes of the funerary, or Osirian, ritual. One of these is the purification of the king. This is very often represented. Sometimes it is performed by Horus and Set, sometimes by Horus and Thoth. (i) A very interesting feature of the coronation-ceremonial was the symbolical uniting of the Two Lands represented by the rush and the papyrus. The ceremony was called Sema-Tawy. Properly speaking this ceremony belonged to the two gods who represented the two great divisions of Egypt — Horus and Set. It is, however, a remarkable fact that Set disappeared at an early date from the representations of this ceremonial. His place was taken by Thoth. This circumstance is to be associated with the substitution of the name of Thoth for that of Set in the lists of gods. In the purification-ceremony at the coronation Set also tends to disappear, leaving his place to Thoth. All this, of course, is somehow to be connected with the gradual degradation of Set to the level of a Typhonic being.
Does all this need to be explained? Much of the Jewish OT is obsessed w/ Egypt, a place where 'the Jews' are mythically 'held captive'. Moses is Egyptian. In fact, Semites long resident in Lower Egypt had periodically ruled -- and come into conflict -- w/ Egyptians, Assyrians, and Greeks, battling over the world's richest farmland, and an Empire avant le mot. Meanwhile, in 38AD, the Herodian satrapy expanded enormously by the successful scheming of a Jewish faction or one man, Agrippa: which was it? Greeks saw his arrival in Alexandria as a threat: yet another Assyrian sally, straight into the de facto capital of Lower Egypt (skipping the Siriad)? Local history must have known dozens prior. So a risible pantomime of the ancient Sema-Tawy, detourned w/ a Jewish Fool, was an exquisitely political snub loaded w/ well-known local symbolism.
On the other, Jewish side: Messianic Judaism, in Egypt, meant what exactly? And Agrippa is judged how, by subsequent rabbinical Judaism? Again, it's not at all surprising that Mark and the NT might echo something of this import: w/ no need whatsoever for Philo, as mediator. The (Egyptian) Jews were already dreaming of a Savior-King, for many many generations before 38AD.
Re: "Maris"
Mari (symbol of defeated babylon?) was where Chaldaeans migrated from, there was a ziggurat (Tower of Babel) at Mari before it was destroyed -- repeatedly. But also: heckling the Jewish King with a Chaldaean title was tauntingly recalling his Oriental/Assyrian background, IF that is what 'Maris" means. Final thought: screaming "Mari, Mari" (pidgin Latin) at Jews suggests 'drive them into the sea', perhaps? In fact, tragically and deplorably, that is exactly what immediately came to pass. Occam's Razor, after all?
Re: Mark's use of Philo
Understanding narrative criticism was something I took a stab at over 10 years ago.
The following is based mainly on Stephen D Moore's Post Structuralism and the New Testament (1994).
PS: For those who get into this kind of thing, Daniel Patte's Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (1990), provides an overview of Structural Exegesis as applied to the NT text. In the process he summarizes the meta-theory of A. J. Greimas into a six-step method:
1) defining complete discourse units,
2) identifying explicit oppositions of actions,
3) identification of convictions expressed by the subjects of opposed actions,
4) identification of the convictions expressed by the effects of opposed actions upon receivers,
5) identification of the pattern of the system of convictions being expressed, and
6) discerning the specific features of the discourse unit.
John 3:1-21 and 10:1-18 are used as examples, and then this summarized meta theory is applied to John 4:4-42 and Luke 10:21-42.
The following is based mainly on Stephen D Moore's Post Structuralism and the New Testament (1994).
According to Moore, Narrative Criticism has been redefined by a number of recent biblical exegetes, who he calls "the new dispensation.""in its more ambitious forms, [a Post Structuralist approach] attempts to analyze biblical texts as products of trans-historical and trans-cultural generative systems, bracketing historical considerations in order to do so. Less ambitious forms of biblical structuralism seek to analyze the text in terms of their 'surface' components (actions, characters, settings, etc.) - at which point they shade over into narrative criticism." (Moore, pg. 69).
Secular Narratology, he explains, is"This 'new dispensation's' roots and trunk derive from Redaction Criticism, onto which have been grafted elements of Secular Narratology (the main form of literary Structuralism).
The closest parallel Moore can think of to Narrative Criticism's employment of holistic readings was the "New Criticism" of the 1930's - 50's:the "conception of the literary text as a communication between an author and a reader conducted through a set of intermediary personae (implied author, narrator, reader, implied reader), joined to a conception of the narrative text as an autonomous story whose basic elements are plot, characters, and settings, with a preoccupation with the rhetorical techniques used by the author to transmit the story to the reader." (Moore, pp. 67-68).
Secular Narratology is appropriate, he says, in order"for which the literary work of art, preeminently the poem, was an autonomous, internally unified organism, the bearer of a meaning that had to be validated first and foremost by the context of the work itself , as opposed to its historical setting." (Moore, pg. 68).
Reader-Response Criticism, for its part, is described as a"to analyze plot, character, point of view, setting, narrative time, and other features of Gospel narrative, including the intratextual reader (at which point it shades over to reader-response criticism)." [However ...] "Narrative criticism has no precise analogue in nonbiblical literary criticism." (Moore, pg. 131).
Moore confesses that for a time he found the "new literary criticism" of the New Testament (in his case mainly Narrative Criticism coupled with Reader-Response Criticism) to be a way out of the dissonance he felt after his adoption of Historical Criticism some years beforehand."spectrum of contrasting positions, some centered on the ways in which literary texts guide, educate, and manipulate their readers (New testament reader-response critics fall mainly into this category), others more interested in how readers actually read (which may have little to do with subtle textual promptings), and still others centered on the factors that enable and delimit reading in the first place (competence, cultural or institutional location, gender, etc.)." (Moore, pp. 131-132).
Somewhere in Mark Allan Powell's, What is Narrative Criticism? (1990), he is quoted by Moore as saying"Soon, however, a sneaking suspicion began to creep up on me ...: What if narrative criticism were actually a retreat from the critical rigor of historical scholarship? What if its not inconsiderable success were due to a widespread weariness with 'the unrest and difficulty for Christian piety' caused by centuries of historical criticism?" (Moore, pg. 115).
When I read a copy of Powell's book, he seems to feel that Narrative Criticism is quite compatible with"we should be careful, however, not to disparage historical criticism simply because it raises questions that are difficult for people of faith. The struggles that historical-critical investigation engender are significant for theological growth. Employment of narrative criticism as a means of avoiding difficult or controversial issues represents, in my mind, a misuse of methodology." (Powell, as cited by Moore, pg. 116).
DCH"the interests of believing communities" ... "It is especially attractive to those who have been uncomfortable with the challenges posed by historical criticism." ... "By interpreting texts from the point of view of their own implied readers, narrative criticism offers exegesis that is inevitably from a faith perspective." (Powell, pp. 88-89)
PS: For those who get into this kind of thing, Daniel Patte's Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (1990), provides an overview of Structural Exegesis as applied to the NT text. In the process he summarizes the meta-theory of A. J. Greimas into a six-step method:
1) defining complete discourse units,
2) identifying explicit oppositions of actions,
3) identification of convictions expressed by the subjects of opposed actions,
4) identification of the convictions expressed by the effects of opposed actions upon receivers,
5) identification of the pattern of the system of convictions being expressed, and
6) discerning the specific features of the discourse unit.
John 3:1-21 and 10:1-18 are used as examples, and then this summarized meta theory is applied to John 4:4-42 and Luke 10:21-42.
maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:29 amDCHindley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:18 pmI think MH is applying "Reader Response" criticism.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 11:06 am 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"?
DCH
Yep, consumer of scholarly arguments - differentiating the insightful from the duds.....the useful from the useless.....the historical facts from the imaginative illusions.....
Consumer rights in order to make the marketplace of ideas a safer place - always on the lookout for ideas that lead the unaware down that Primrose Path.....