JOSEPHUS: THE "FOURTH PHILOSOPHY" |
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 refers to this same Judas as “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” left 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 philosophic sect,” 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 them. 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,” and instructing 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?
The emphasis Orthodox Christianity placed on the literal interpretation of
scriptures, as opposed to Philo's "allegorical interpretation," was
implemented in order that the truth about Jesus and his disciples might
never be discovered. "Those with ears to hear, listen!"
*****
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
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 refers to this same Judas as “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” left 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 philosophic sect,” 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 them. 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,” and instructing 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?
The emphasis Orthodox Christianity placed on the literal interpretation of
scriptures, as opposed to Philo's "allegorical interpretation," was
implemented in order that the truth about Jesus and his disciples might
never be discovered. "Those with ears to hear, listen!"
*****
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