Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence?
- At 06:48 PM 1/6/2002 -0600, Frank McCoy wrote:
>----- Original Message -----Frank,
>From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 9:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence?
> > It is easier to see that the author of GJohn considered this to be so, than
> > it is to demonstrate that Jesus himself believed it. There is much more
> > evidence for the former than for the latter. If what you say is true, why
> > was this remarkable fact passed over in silence by Mark, Matthew and Luke?
> > Or have I failed to remember some analysis of yours that claimed that
> > Jesus/Logos Christology is also evident in the other Gospels?
>I have made posts outlining evidence that Mark's Jesus is Philo's Logos
>incarnate in the flesh as the Essenes' Branch of David (e.g., see the posts
>of 7-25, 7-31, 8-2, and 8-5). In my last post to Loren, I point out
>evidence that Jesus is Philo's Logos in the parable of the wise and foolish
>virgins (from Matthew). I have pointed out in past posts that there is
>evidence of a Logos christology in parts of Luke's infancy narrative....
>The bottom line: Evidence of a Logos Christology can be found in all the
>canonical gospel traditions and in the Thomas tradition as well. Thats a
>lot of smoke spread through a goodly number of what might be independent
>gospel traditions, so there's the possiblity, ISTM, of a fire, i.e., of an
>underlying reality that the real Jesus did claim to be Philo's Logos
>incarnate on earth.
I apologize for not remembering that you had addressed these issues. It was
careless of me not to check.
> > >[Bob]Thanks for your clarification! I think we understand each other better now.
> > > > But you are assuming what is to be proved. How do we really know
> that they
> > > > are *Philonic* ideas? It does not follow equally that if enough
> ideas are
> > > > *attributed* to Philonic thought, then does it really increase the
> > > > probability that they actually were influenced by *Philonic*
> thought (and
> > > > not by some common tradition)?
> > >
> > >[Frank]
> > >I am assuming nothing. If an idea is present in Philonic thought, then it
> > >is a Philonic idea. This is a no brainer.
> > It is also not true. Suppose I write that I think democracy is a good
> > thing. Does that mean that democracy is a Schacht idea? There is a big
> > difference between an idea that crosses someone's mind, and an idea that is
> > created by someone. The latter merits credit; the former scarcely matters.
>It's now clear to me that the term "Philonic idea" is ambigous, since you
>and I have differing conceptualizations as to its meaning.
>Because the term "Philonic idea" is ambiguous I should not have used it in
>past posts and I apologize to you and to the other X-talk listers for having
>done so. In future posts, I will try to avoid this term and will try to
>only speak of ideas held by Philo. Feel free to jump all over me if, in a
>future post, I forget this and fall back on old ways!
I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify what I meant when I wrote
>I am sorry to point out that this is an oft-repeated tactic ofI very much regret the tone of this statement. I did not mean to imply
>many crackpots, and I am loath to see you in their company. That is, they
>propose some loony idea, and then assert that is the responsibility of
>the *others* to prove them wrong. This is putting the shoe on the wrong
>foot. It is *your* responsibility, not ours, to make the case that your
>theory is stronger than rival hypotheses.
guilt by association, or that your ideas are "loony," or that you are some
kind of crackpot. I meant only to draw attention to the tactic of claiming
that a theory is to be assumed true until proven false, so that the "burden
of proof," so to speak, falls not on the proposer of the theory, but on the
proposer's audience (to disprove the claim). I appreciate the patience with
which you marshall data in favor of your theories, even if I am reluctant
to come to the same conclusions. And by our recent exchanges, I can see
that you do not really appear to be claiming what I thought you were
claiming, and appreciate your taking the time to set me straight. So
perhaps our understanding is not as far apart as I had thought.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]