JOSEPHUS: THE "FOURTH PHILOSOPHY By Gott |
Josephus, the first century historian, is given a great deal of
credibility by scholars searching for the historical Jesus and his
disciples. For example, when Josephus differs from Luke, it is
assumed that Luke was mistaken.
Many scholars have now come to the conclusion that Luke probably
had a copy of Josephus’ works as he composed Luke-Acts. There are
strong indications that this is a correct assumption. But these same
biblical scholars are left scratching their heads when Luke “gets it
wrong” and contradicts Josephus.
What usually happens is that Luke reverses the order of events that
have also been described by Josephus. Here’s an example:
Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.1 97-99:
"During the time when Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain
enchanter named Theudas persuaded a great number of the people
to take their belongings with them and follow him to the Jordan
River.” … “They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and
carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of
Cuspius Fadus's government."
(Note: Fadus governed from 44 to 46 ACE).
Josephus, Antiquities 28.1; 6:
“Now Cyrenius (or Quirinius), a Roman senator … came at this time
into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of
that nation, and to take an account of their substance.” (This was the
famous census for the purpose of taxation.)
"Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was
Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to
draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better
than an introduction to slavery …" (Note: The census of Cyrenius,
a.k.a., Quirinius, was in 6 CE. )
In this section of Antiquities, Josephus calls Judas “a Gaulonite”;
elsewhere, he called this same Judas “the Galilean,” as in the
section below when he is describing the “four sects” of Jewish
philosophy:
“But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was
the author.”
From this it can be seen that Josephus dates the beheading of
Theudas between 44 and 46; he dates the “birth” of the “Fourth
Sect,” authored by Judas the Galilean, circa 6.
Luke 2:2 dates the birth of Jesus as follows:
“This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius
(Cyrenius) was governor of Syria.”
Luke 5:36-37:
“For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a
number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed,
and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him
Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people
to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were
scattered.”
Luke reversed the order that these two men appeared in history,
reporting that the beheading of Theudas came first, then Judas the
Galilean “at the time of the census” came after him protesting
taxation.
Reminder: According to Josephus Theudas raised his revolt circa 44-
46, four decades after the census of Quirinius circa 6.
There are other similar examples of this switching of dates and/or
names, to the consternation and confusion of modern biblical
scholars.
Luke 2:2 also fomented another debate that has raged for nearly two
thousand years:
How could Jesus be born “during the reign of Herod” (Luke 1:5 and
Matthew 2:1), AND, "at the time of the first census"? Herod died circa
4 BCE; the census occurred circa 6 ACE. What is going on with Luke
that he would create such confusion?
To answer that question requires a brief visit to Philo of Alexandria, a
contemporary of Josephus and Luke. Philo taught his students how
to identify and decode “secret messages” hidden in scripture by
their authors. His “rules” are enumerated at the end of this essay.
Among Philo’s clues that the “initiated” were to look for when
attempting to identify and decode the hidden message are “striking
statements.” An obvious error or contradiction is certainly “striking,”
getting the attention of biblical scholars trying to piece together an
accurate picture of this time in history. Based on Philo’s work, then,
Luke’s gospel has just notified the reader that this section must be
“decoded” if we are to know what Luke really wanted to convey.
Accepting the assumption that Luke had a copy of Josephus before
him and anticipated that we would also, what was he trying to report
by switching the dates? He stated clearly that “Jesus” was born at
the time of the first census during the reign of Quirinius. Therefore,
he wrote this, knowing that Josephus had dated the “birth of the
Fourth Philosophy” at exactly the same time.
Combining the two sources, then, with Luke building on Josephus’
report of the “birth” of the “fourth philosophy,” Luke’s message is
this:
“Jesus” was not a newborn babe when the census occurred. “Jesus”
represented, allegorically, the birth of a new philosophy, the “Fourth
Philosophy” that Josephus refused to name.
The next question is this: What was the name of the philosophy that
Judas the Galilean “authored”?
There is but one sect that Josephus omitted in his list of sects that
included Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes: That sect was the
Nazarenes. Therefore, it is easily concluded that “The Fourth
Philosophy” was called “Nazarene.” It seems that quite a lot of effort
went into wiping them out of the story, including Matthew’s version
of Jesus’ birth.
Matthew’s gospel attempted to redefine the meaning of “Nazarene”
by inserting one short story that concluded with one brief phrase.
The story can be found at Matthew 2:16-23; the phrase at 2:23:
“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had
been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be
called a Nazarene.”
Were it not for Acts 24:5 (… a ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes)”, we might never have known that the Nazarenes were
not “people who came from the town of Nazareth,” but rather a “sect”
of Judaism. Josephus certainly provided no help.
It is noteworthy that both Matthew and Josephus attempted to
remove the Nazarenes from the history that surrounded Jesus. Most
biblical translations that came down to us, including King James,
referred to Jesus as “of Nazareth,” when in fact the Greek words
used are more accurately translated as “the Nazarene.”
Both Luke and Matthew were written during the lifetime of Josephus.
Josephus reported his own ancestry and included the following
pertinent information:
“This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first
year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph,
born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was
born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to
Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar.”
“Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of is
nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his
righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the
greatest city we have. I was myself brought up with my brother,
whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father
and mother …”
What this does is clarify Josephus’ full name: “Josephus ben
Matthias,” or “Joseph son of Matthew.” Considering the obvious
desire to separate “Jesus” from the “sect of the Nazarenes” that
both Josephus and Matthew revealed through their omissions and
words, an argument can probably be developed that would show a
high likelihood that Josephus was also the author of Matthew’s
gospel.
There must have been a good reason for them to expunge the
Nazarenes from history. The Nazarenes must have been the primary
adversary in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of
Judea. And indeed, this is exactly what Josephus reported about
Judas the Galilean:
“… taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, (Judas the Galilean) became
zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was
no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to
assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and
security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still
greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would
thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not
otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one
another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own
advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits,
and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what
they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great
height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the
nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one
violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends
which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great
robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in
pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of
gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders
of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the
madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was
that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their
enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last
degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities;
nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of
God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the
consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered,
and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward
bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus
conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth
philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein,
filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the
foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which
we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will
discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which
spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it,
brought the public to destruction.”
Josephus left no doubt that the unnamed “fourth philosophy” was his
enemy and the enemy of the establishment which he supported. He
blamed them for all the problems that befell Jerusalem, including the
destruction of the Temple in 70 ACE. He acknowledged that they
achieved a great deal of success, and yet, their name was omitted
from Josephus’ history and misdefined and misdirected in Matthew’s
gospel.
Josephus tells us that this new “sect” taught a “system of
philosophy, which we were before unacquainted with.” However,
through no fault of his own, he helped Luke identify the name of this
sect by repeatedly using the word “zealous” in his description of
those who adopted it. Luke seized upon this description to connect
them with Jesus and his disciples in both Luke and Acts:
Luke 6:15: “…and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus,
and Simon, who was called the Zealot …"
Acts 1:13: “When they had entered the city, they went to the room
upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and
Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of
Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.”
Josephus described the “doctrines” of this “fourth sect” as follows:
“These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but
they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to
be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds
of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and
friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since
this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall
speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I
have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I
have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo
pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to
grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who
occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority,
and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of
Jewish philosophy.”
Opposition to the taxation that would result from the census of 6 ACE
was the moment
that Judas the Galilean chose to unveil this “New Philosophy.” What
other “doctrines” he was teaching Josephus chose not to reveal.
Those can be found in the gospels, but not in Paul’s letters. Paul’s
letters, like Josephus, supported the “rulers,” instructing the
believers to “pay their taxes without complaint” and the slaves to
“obey their masters.”
It can be concluded from Josephus’ brief description that “taxation”
was equated with “slavery” and that this Fourth Philosophy was
opposed to both. Those issues must have been the primary focus
and disagreement during this period of history. For this sect to have
generated such great turmoil, both sides must have been supported
by people with both power and money. That is another essay on
another day.
I will close with some questions that all Christians must ask
themselves:
If the religion that became “Orthodox Christianity” accepts the
teachings of Paul regarding taxation and slavery, how can it be
equated with the doctrine promoted by Jesus the Nazarene’s “New
Philosophy”?
Why did Josephus avoid naming this “Fourth Philosophy” that was
“well known to a great many”?
If it was “well known to a great many,” “proceeded to great heights,”
and “infected the nation to an incredible degree,” why did Luke have
to go to such lengths to give us their name: “Nazarenes”?
Why did Luke have to identify Jesus’ disciples with the “Zealots” in
order to lead to the underlying fact that the Zealots were actually
Nazarenes and were opposed to taxation and slavery?
There is but one logical answer to these questions: “Orthodox
Christianity” considered “The Fourth Philosophy” to be a heresy.
Orthodox Christianity rejected the doctrines of Jesus the Nazarene
and replaced them with Paul’s doctrines which were diametrically
opposed to Jesus but supportive of the Herodians.
One final question: If you believe that Jesus taught the truth, lived
and died that this New Philosophy might flourish, and wants us to
honor Him and follow in his path, can you continue to support and
practice the religion promoted by Paul, and supported by Josephus,
that rejected Him and sought to destroy his doctrines?
*****
Wikipedia on Philo’s “rules for the allegorical interpretation of
scripture":
“He has special rules that direct the reader to recognize the
passages which demand an allegorical interpretation, and which help
the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These
passages are such as contain: (1) the doubling of a phrase; (2) an
apparently superfluous expression in the text; (3) the repetition of
statements previously made; (4) a change of phraseology—all these
phenomena point to something special that the reader must
consider. (5) An entirely different meaning may also be found by a
different combination of the words, disregarding the ordinarily
accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and
clauses. (6) The synonyms must be carefully studied; e.g., why λαὸς is
used in one passage and γένος in another, etc. (7) A play upon words
must be utilized for finding a deeper meaning; e.g., sheep
(πρόβατον) stand for progress in knowledge, since they derive their
name from the fact of their progressing (προβαίνειν), etc. (8) A
definite allegorical sense may be gathered from certain particles,
adverbs, prepositions, etc.; and in certain cases it can be gathered
even from (9) the parts of a word; e.g., from διά in διάλευκος. (10)
Every word must be explained in all its meanings, in order that
different interpretations may be found. (11) The skillful interpreter
may make slight changes in a word, following the rabbinical rule,
"Read not this way, but that way." Philo, therefore, changed accents,
breathings, etc., in Greek words. (12) Any peculiarity in a phrase
justifies the assumption that some special meaning is intended: e.g.,
where μία ("one") is used instead of πρώτη ("first"; Gen. i. 5), etc.
Details regarding the form of words are very important: (13) the
number of the word, if it shows any peculiarity in the singular or the
plural: the tense of the verb, etc.; (14) the gender of the noun; (15)
the presence or omission of the article; (16) the artificial
interpretation of a single expression; (17) the position of the verses
of a passage; (18) peculiar verse-combinations; (19) noteworthy
omissions; (20) striking statements; (21) numeral symbolism. Philo
found much material for this symbolism in the Hebrew Bible, and he
developed it more thoroughly according to the methods of the
Pythagoreans and Stoics. He could follow in many points the tradition
handed down by his allegorizing predecessors ("De Vita
Contemplativa," § 8 [ii. 481]).”
Copyright Paula Gott, Springfield, Missouri 2007
credibility by scholars searching for the historical Jesus and his
disciples. For example, when Josephus differs from Luke, it is
assumed that Luke was mistaken.
Many scholars have now come to the conclusion that Luke probably
had a copy of Josephus’ works as he composed Luke-Acts. There are
strong indications that this is a correct assumption. But these same
biblical scholars are left scratching their heads when Luke “gets it
wrong” and contradicts Josephus.
What usually happens is that Luke reverses the order of events that
have also been described by Josephus. Here’s an example:
Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.1 97-99:
"During the time when Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain
enchanter named Theudas persuaded a great number of the people
to take their belongings with them and follow him to the Jordan
River.” … “They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and
carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of
Cuspius Fadus's government."
(Note: Fadus governed from 44 to 46 ACE).
Josephus, Antiquities 28.1; 6:
“Now Cyrenius (or Quirinius), a Roman senator … came at this time
into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of
that nation, and to take an account of their substance.” (This was the
famous census for the purpose of taxation.)
"Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was
Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to
draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better
than an introduction to slavery …" (Note: The census of Cyrenius,
a.k.a., Quirinius, was in 6 CE. )
In this section of Antiquities, Josephus calls Judas “a Gaulonite”;
elsewhere, he called this same Judas “the Galilean,” as in the
section below when he is describing the “four sects” of Jewish
philosophy:
“But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was
the author.”
From this it can be seen that Josephus dates the beheading of
Theudas between 44 and 46; he dates the “birth” of the “Fourth
Sect,” authored by Judas the Galilean, circa 6.
Luke 2:2 dates the birth of Jesus as follows:
“This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius
(Cyrenius) was governor of Syria.”
Luke 5:36-37:
“For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a
number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed,
and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him
Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people
to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were
scattered.”
Luke reversed the order that these two men appeared in history,
reporting that the beheading of Theudas came first, then Judas the
Galilean “at the time of the census” came after him protesting
taxation.
Reminder: According to Josephus Theudas raised his revolt circa 44-
46, four decades after the census of Quirinius circa 6.
There are other similar examples of this switching of dates and/or
names, to the consternation and confusion of modern biblical
scholars.
Luke 2:2 also fomented another debate that has raged for nearly two
thousand years:
How could Jesus be born “during the reign of Herod” (Luke 1:5 and
Matthew 2:1), AND, "at the time of the first census"? Herod died circa
4 BCE; the census occurred circa 6 ACE. What is going on with Luke
that he would create such confusion?
To answer that question requires a brief visit to Philo of Alexandria, a
contemporary of Josephus and Luke. Philo taught his students how
to identify and decode “secret messages” hidden in scripture by
their authors. His “rules” are enumerated at the end of this essay.
Among Philo’s clues that the “initiated” were to look for when
attempting to identify and decode the hidden message are “striking
statements.” An obvious error or contradiction is certainly “striking,”
getting the attention of biblical scholars trying to piece together an
accurate picture of this time in history. Based on Philo’s work, then,
Luke’s gospel has just notified the reader that this section must be
“decoded” if we are to know what Luke really wanted to convey.
Accepting the assumption that Luke had a copy of Josephus before
him and anticipated that we would also, what was he trying to report
by switching the dates? He stated clearly that “Jesus” was born at
the time of the first census during the reign of Quirinius. Therefore,
he wrote this, knowing that Josephus had dated the “birth of the
Fourth Philosophy” at exactly the same time.
Combining the two sources, then, with Luke building on Josephus’
report of the “birth” of the “fourth philosophy,” Luke’s message is
this:
“Jesus” was not a newborn babe when the census occurred. “Jesus”
represented, allegorically, the birth of a new philosophy, the “Fourth
Philosophy” that Josephus refused to name.
The next question is this: What was the name of the philosophy that
Judas the Galilean “authored”?
There is but one sect that Josephus omitted in his list of sects that
included Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes: That sect was the
Nazarenes. Therefore, it is easily concluded that “The Fourth
Philosophy” was called “Nazarene.” It seems that quite a lot of effort
went into wiping them out of the story, including Matthew’s version
of Jesus’ birth.
Matthew’s gospel attempted to redefine the meaning of “Nazarene”
by inserting one short story that concluded with one brief phrase.
The story can be found at Matthew 2:16-23; the phrase at 2:23:
“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had
been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be
called a Nazarene.”
Were it not for Acts 24:5 (… a ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes)”, we might never have known that the Nazarenes were
not “people who came from the town of Nazareth,” but rather a “sect”
of Judaism. Josephus certainly provided no help.
It is noteworthy that both Matthew and Josephus attempted to
remove the Nazarenes from the history that surrounded Jesus. Most
biblical translations that came down to us, including King James,
referred to Jesus as “of Nazareth,” when in fact the Greek words
used are more accurately translated as “the Nazarene.”
Both Luke and Matthew were written during the lifetime of Josephus.
Josephus reported his own ancestry and included the following
pertinent information:
“This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first
year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph,
born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was
born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to
Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar.”
“Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of is
nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his
righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the
greatest city we have. I was myself brought up with my brother,
whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father
and mother …”
What this does is clarify Josephus’ full name: “Josephus ben
Matthias,” or “Joseph son of Matthew.” Considering the obvious
desire to separate “Jesus” from the “sect of the Nazarenes” that
both Josephus and Matthew revealed through their omissions and
words, an argument can probably be developed that would show a
high likelihood that Josephus was also the author of Matthew’s
gospel.
There must have been a good reason for them to expunge the
Nazarenes from history. The Nazarenes must have been the primary
adversary in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of
Judea. And indeed, this is exactly what Josephus reported about
Judas the Galilean:
“… taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, (Judas the Galilean) became
zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was
no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to
assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and
security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still
greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would
thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not
otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one
another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own
advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits,
and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what
they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great
height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the
nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one
violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends
which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great
robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in
pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of
gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders
of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the
madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was
that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their
enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last
degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities;
nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of
God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the
consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered,
and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward
bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus
conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth
philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein,
filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the
foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which
we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will
discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which
spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it,
brought the public to destruction.”
Josephus left no doubt that the unnamed “fourth philosophy” was his
enemy and the enemy of the establishment which he supported. He
blamed them for all the problems that befell Jerusalem, including the
destruction of the Temple in 70 ACE. He acknowledged that they
achieved a great deal of success, and yet, their name was omitted
from Josephus’ history and misdefined and misdirected in Matthew’s
gospel.
Josephus tells us that this new “sect” taught a “system of
philosophy, which we were before unacquainted with.” However,
through no fault of his own, he helped Luke identify the name of this
sect by repeatedly using the word “zealous” in his description of
those who adopted it. Luke seized upon this description to connect
them with Jesus and his disciples in both Luke and Acts:
Luke 6:15: “…and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus,
and Simon, who was called the Zealot …"
Acts 1:13: “When they had entered the city, they went to the room
upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and
Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of
Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.”
Josephus described the “doctrines” of this “fourth sect” as follows:
“These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but
they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to
be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds
of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and
friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since
this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall
speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I
have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I
have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo
pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to
grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who
occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority,
and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of
Jewish philosophy.”
Opposition to the taxation that would result from the census of 6 ACE
was the moment
that Judas the Galilean chose to unveil this “New Philosophy.” What
other “doctrines” he was teaching Josephus chose not to reveal.
Those can be found in the gospels, but not in Paul’s letters. Paul’s
letters, like Josephus, supported the “rulers,” instructing the
believers to “pay their taxes without complaint” and the slaves to
“obey their masters.”
It can be concluded from Josephus’ brief description that “taxation”
was equated with “slavery” and that this Fourth Philosophy was
opposed to both. Those issues must have been the primary focus
and disagreement during this period of history. For this sect to have
generated such great turmoil, both sides must have been supported
by people with both power and money. That is another essay on
another day.
I will close with some questions that all Christians must ask
themselves:
If the religion that became “Orthodox Christianity” accepts the
teachings of Paul regarding taxation and slavery, how can it be
equated with the doctrine promoted by Jesus the Nazarene’s “New
Philosophy”?
Why did Josephus avoid naming this “Fourth Philosophy” that was
“well known to a great many”?
If it was “well known to a great many,” “proceeded to great heights,”
and “infected the nation to an incredible degree,” why did Luke have
to go to such lengths to give us their name: “Nazarenes”?
Why did Luke have to identify Jesus’ disciples with the “Zealots” in
order to lead to the underlying fact that the Zealots were actually
Nazarenes and were opposed to taxation and slavery?
There is but one logical answer to these questions: “Orthodox
Christianity” considered “The Fourth Philosophy” to be a heresy.
Orthodox Christianity rejected the doctrines of Jesus the Nazarene
and replaced them with Paul’s doctrines which were diametrically
opposed to Jesus but supportive of the Herodians.
One final question: If you believe that Jesus taught the truth, lived
and died that this New Philosophy might flourish, and wants us to
honor Him and follow in his path, can you continue to support and
practice the religion promoted by Paul, and supported by Josephus,
that rejected Him and sought to destroy his doctrines?
*****
Wikipedia on Philo’s “rules for the allegorical interpretation of
scripture":
“He has special rules that direct the reader to recognize the
passages which demand an allegorical interpretation, and which help
the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These
passages are such as contain: (1) the doubling of a phrase; (2) an
apparently superfluous expression in the text; (3) the repetition of
statements previously made; (4) a change of phraseology—all these
phenomena point to something special that the reader must
consider. (5) An entirely different meaning may also be found by a
different combination of the words, disregarding the ordinarily
accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and
clauses. (6) The synonyms must be carefully studied; e.g., why λαὸς is
used in one passage and γένος in another, etc. (7) A play upon words
must be utilized for finding a deeper meaning; e.g., sheep
(πρόβατον) stand for progress in knowledge, since they derive their
name from the fact of their progressing (προβαίνειν), etc. (8) A
definite allegorical sense may be gathered from certain particles,
adverbs, prepositions, etc.; and in certain cases it can be gathered
even from (9) the parts of a word; e.g., from διά in διάλευκος. (10)
Every word must be explained in all its meanings, in order that
different interpretations may be found. (11) The skillful interpreter
may make slight changes in a word, following the rabbinical rule,
"Read not this way, but that way." Philo, therefore, changed accents,
breathings, etc., in Greek words. (12) Any peculiarity in a phrase
justifies the assumption that some special meaning is intended: e.g.,
where μία ("one") is used instead of πρώτη ("first"; Gen. i. 5), etc.
Details regarding the form of words are very important: (13) the
number of the word, if it shows any peculiarity in the singular or the
plural: the tense of the verb, etc.; (14) the gender of the noun; (15)
the presence or omission of the article; (16) the artificial
interpretation of a single expression; (17) the position of the verses
of a passage; (18) peculiar verse-combinations; (19) noteworthy
omissions; (20) striking statements; (21) numeral symbolism. Philo
found much material for this symbolism in the Hebrew Bible, and he
developed it more thoroughly according to the methods of the
Pythagoreans and Stoics. He could follow in many points the tradition
handed down by his allegorizing predecessors ("De Vita
Contemplativa," § 8 [ii. 481]).”
Copyright Paula Gott, Springfield, Missouri 2007
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |