David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?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.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.
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.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.
Not all all. That Mark's story has echoes of Philo's story is, I don't think, controversal.Are you suggesting that Mark was trying to create a mythical religion, from scratch ingredients?
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.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 345). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
That Agrippa wrote to Gaius is questionable.Agrippa wrote to the emperor and explained what was happening, as perceived by Judeans, would lead to total war.
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.
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.
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:46 am