my man!

Philo Judaeus (c. 30 BCE - c. 50 CE) was a prominent leader of the Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt during the late Second Temple Period. He wrote expansively on the intersection of classical Greek philosophy and historical Judaism.

Philo interprets the stories of Torah as elaborate metaphors and symbols. He does not reject the subjective experience of Ancient Judaism; yet, he repeatedly explains that the Torah cannot be understood as a concrete, objective history. Philo is largely shaped by contemporary Platonism. For example, he explains that ideal Greek forms for reason and wisdom illustrate the deep, mystical truth of God and Judaism.

Philo was the son of a prominent and wealthy family. (Dillon, 139) Scholars also determine that Philo directed an official delegation or embassy to the Roman emperor Claudius c. 40 CE. However, Philo is primarily distinguished by an extensive body of writing. Philo completed numerous systematic philosophical treatises, including comprehensive allegorical interpretations of the Torah from the Septuagint (LXX).

Traditional scholarship maintains that Philo subordinates Judaism to Graeco-Roman ideals. This view contends that Philo's writings are essentially apologetic. However, contemporary scholars largely discredit former assumptions about Hellenistic Judaism. For example, critical scholars contend that Hellenism and Judaism . . . reciprocal influence.

Certainly, Hellenistic Judaism integrates the major principles of ambient Greek culture and society. However, it is difficult to establish the primary intent of Philo's interpretations of Scripture and the independent development of Jewish Law.

Hellenistic Judaism may construct an alternative system of law and interpretation. Judaism, where Greek philosophy and Graeco-Roman culture functions or operates as a constructed framework, method, or system for interpretation.

reconcile? or harmonize?

There is considerable disagreement on the operative purpose and structure of his writings.
What is the function of classical Platonic theory?
What is the role of traditional Jewish law?
Does Philo prioritize Hellenistic culture over Torah and Jewish law?

Where did Philo learn classical Greek philosophy?
Who was the intended audience of the treatises?
What is the extent of Philo’s dependence on Jewish tradition?
[[alexandrian tradition of interpretation?]]

Theology
What does Philo believe?

the clothes of jesus

recently, scholars introduced the only extant copy of the gospel of judas. research dates the codex to the 4th century CE, and scholars determine that the original story stems from the first century CE.

the gospel presents a very different portrait of judas iscariot than the four canon gospels. dominant tradition explains that judas betrayed jesus of nazareth to roman soldiers for silver. however, the gospel contends that judas only reveals jesus with his explicit blessing. in fact, jesus shares a secret wisdom that enlightens judas above all of the other apostles. jesus explains, "you will exceed all of them. for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

Gnostic Christianity

scholars increasingly identify tremendous diversity within judaism and christianity during late antiquity. early christian groups struggled to gain community authority for their specific interpretation of jesus' life and teachings. recent schoalrship defines three major categories of early christianity: jewish christians, gentile christians, and gnostic christians. the jewish christians, or nazarenes, struggled to understand traditional jewish law inside a new covenant with the jewish god and his messiah, jesus. in contrast, gentile or pauline christians promoted a universal covenant for redemption and salvation through jesus, the son of god.

the gospel of judas is generally attirbuted to gnostic christianity, alternative christian groups that practiced a mystical or spiritual christian theology. mystic belief and practice encouraged a deep, spiritual understanding of logos, the ideal soul of god. gnostic christians specifically believed that jesus was the perfect son of the ideal, unchanging form of goodness and wisdom. further, gnostic christians believed that true redemption and salvation is the enlightened understanding of the deep mysteries of the logos. the gospel of john explains that the mystery of logos, or the mystery of jesus, is "immeasurable light which is pure, holy and immaculate."

Orthodox Christianity

during late antiquity, people read many different religious texts, including multiple variants of single texts. they read these texts similar to the way we read stories, newspapers, or gospels today. however, early church fathers (and early rabbinic sages!) agressively censored and marginalized alternative belief and practice. increasing political authority led to an emergent community practice which then led to the slow development of mainstream tradition.

today, orthodox christianity forcibly rejects the authority of the lost gospel and other apocryphal texts, including the gospel of peter, the gospel of thomas, and the gospel of mary magdala. the corporate church traditionally only recognizes four true gospels: matthew, mark, luke, and john.

however, orthodox christianity (and orthodox judaism) is largely constructed. it promotes a limited, incomplete history of the belief and practice of early christianity. for example, the church establishment only gained significant authority after the conversion of constantine and the roman empire. further, church leadership first established a formal consensus only at the council of nicea in 325, 300 years after the death of jesus. they mandated christian belief "in one god, the father almighty. . . and in one lord jesus christ, the only begotten son of god."

Conclusion

i am not christian. it is certainly not my interest to challenge or dispute the central theology of corporate chrisitianity. i do not mean to say that the 4 central gospels are incorrect, and i do not believe that the lost gospel is the one true word. however, i do want to say that the recent discovery and publication of the gospel of judas further demonstrates that orthodox history of religion is incomplete. we must learn to combine advanced research with progressive faith.

we must be able to reseach and study the letter and spirit of our religious traditions. indeed, maimonides maintained it was essential to study secular philosophy and science. he believed that judaism promoted essential truth. however, he explained that secular study could challenge and advance our understanding of this truth. we can balance critical research and spiritual belief.

we must continue study and scholarship to unfold the true history and authentic meaning of our traditions. recently, peter manseau compared the gospel of judas to an alternative judas presented in "jesus christ superstar". he explains that the two representations of judas are fundamentally different; however, they both challenge and revise the mainstream reading of judas and christianity. he writes, "both faith and history are more complicated than we imagine."

a perfect mess

"The encouraging discovery that free elections are possible in unexpected places has a discouraging corollary: If tolerance and pluralism and suchlike Western values are not essential preconditions for democratic elections, they are not the necessary result of elections either. By definition, democracy produces a government that the people—or some plurality of the people—want, at least at that moment. But it may not produce the kind of government that we wish they would want, or—more to the point—that we want."
ian fisher
new york times
january 29, 2006


in full disclosure, i am jewish. i have travelled to israel several times, and i have a very complicated understanding of zionism. i believe in israel. it is very special to sit and to talk and to think about judaism, jewish culture, and jewish history in our historic home. israel provides shelter and security for our ideals and our people even as we are targeted by hate and by terror.

however, i also struggle to understand modern israel's history. soldiers in the war for independence were incredibly brave. they showed steel resolve and clear determination. unfortunately, we also know that battles to establish a progressive jewish state uprooted whole palestinian towns and villages. benny morris explains that thousands of palestinan arab were killed and more than 700,000 palestinian arabs were displaced from their homes.
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=24281

interestingly, morris resurfaced in israeli news recently. as a scholar, he maintains that his historical research was clear and accurate. however, as a citizen, he explains that palestinian leadership has not shown integrity or honesty. how can we reconcile both inspired hope and a tragic loss? can both sides be right and wrong?

albert camus once wrote, "I want to love my homeland and to love justice alike. I wish no greatness for my homeland if that greatness is made of blood and lies. I want to instill life in justice and through it instill life in my homeland."

today, we have similar struggle. hamas clearly encourages and supports terror against israeli civilians. it refuses to recognize the israeli government, and it swears the destruction of the state of israel. yet, israel also continues to incite and oppress palestinians. palestinians in israel receive drastically low funding for communities and schools. israeli palestinan legislators are elected to parliament, but they cannot vote on active legislation.

thomas friedman recently explained that israel, the united states, and the european union have blundered real opporunity. while hamas clearly supports terrorism, it gained a parliament majority through free and fair elections. friedman maintains that a hamas election . . . about fatah corruption than hamas ideology. hamas is renown for social service and education programs in the territories. it is respected for bravery and integrity.

It is difficult to engage diplomacy; however, I believe we've ensured terrorism. further, I believe we have folded in an important advantage in world opinion.

Dominant world opinion accepts a just, two-state solution. Centrists recognize that Israeli and Palestinian society are intricately connected. Leftists realize that Israel is now a clear Jewish state, and they believe that Palestinians can establish a sustainable independent state. Rightists recognize demographic relaties: greater Israel is not possible. Indeed, without separation, Sharon concludes that any Zionist state might fail.

Palestinians deserve a sustainable, democratic state. While there is unjust poverty in the Palestinian territories, we know that terrorism is largely rooted in anti-Israeli philosophy. Extreme secular anti-Zionism (Fatah and the Martyr Brigades) and fundamentalist Islamic antisemitism (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) are largely inspired by sophisticated, University educated activist terrorists. A broad segment of the Palestinian population supports revolutionary attacks against Israel; however, they do not support wholesale destruction of the state of Israel. In fact, the Palestinian economy is essentially linked to the Israeli economy.

Still Israel continues "targeted" assassinations and "limited" invasions. Each strike may ostensibly grab terrorists and harm terrorist infrastructure. However, the greater loss of civilian life must make these missions unavoidably unsuccessful.

Opponents often ask, "Would you require the united states to hold the same standard?" Unfortunately, the current US administration does not hold the same standard. They have uprooted Iraqi civilians and Iraqi society without prejudice. Our planning and our response has been tragic. There are increasing American, British, and Iraqi civilian and military casualities. American and British contract workers and American soldiers. There are increasing bombings and assassinations of Iraqi families, Iraqi police officers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi politicians.

We cannot isolate the judgments or violence of either Israeli or Palestinian political leaders. We are each responsible for the continued violence. The only path to peace is peace.

a military peace?

"It seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. . .The United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the project."
francis fukuyama
the new york times magazine
februrary 19, 2006


during early 2003, i could not commit to support or protest the war in iraq. i was a student at the school of social work at the university of michigan. students were strongly opposed to any military intervention. i am personally non-violent; however, history teaches us that some military conflicts are inevitable and essential.

i believed that certain american military success would uproot a hateful, violent tyranny. i further believed that a new democratic society would prioritize equality and education. as a social worker, i could not argue against increased opportunity for oppressed women, isolated kurds, and disadvantaged shi'a.

yet, i also believed that president bush rushed to war. i did not believe that iraq threatened our immediate security, and i believed that tough diplomacy had strangled and isolated saddam's ambition and terror. international inspectors had made significant headway towards weakening and deactivating a formerly robust biological weapons program. i also deeply questioned any preemptive war: is it possible to guess crimes and criminals?

i did not feel indecisive. . . i felt neutral. i could not actively oppose or support the war. however, it was very interesting to see the protest movement's clear support for american troops. protestors learned that political protests against the war in vietnam had overreached. radical protests increasingly rejected american soldiers in vietnam and returning vietnam veterans.

in that spirit, i support the continued effort of our brave troops. however, recent reports demonstrate that our civilian leadership did not learn from our tragic mistakes in vietnam. i believe that our war effort demonstrates our president's stubborn arrogance and consistent imcompetence. recently, 7 high ranking generals and military strategiests called for the resignation of defense secretary donald rumsfeld.

first white house rebuttals note that hundreds of officers and generals have served sec. rumsfeld without public rancor. however, it is unprecendented for any military leaders to so adamantly and so publicly disagree with an active military effort. perhaps even more significantly, an open call for military leadership to support rumsfeld has only led to 3 public statements - one from his immediate subordinate.

it is not clear that we have helped establish an open, democratic society in iraq. the iraqi constitution mandates that one quarter of asembly representatives be women. it further establishes democratic elections and proposes a federalist balance between sunni, shi'a, and kurdish states. however, the political process has only activated regional and ethnic conflict. the current assembly is corrupt and undisciplined. while many women now attend school and university, some women are also increasingly forced to follow fundamentalist sharia law.

today, we know that the powell doctrine of overwhelming force was ignored. we know that the bush doctrine for preemptive war overreached, and the rumsfeld doctrine for lean military strikes failed to maintain any initial success. we know that the evidence for war was cooked, that planning for occupation was avoided, and that our large scale military effort in iraq has failed to achieve its primary objectives. we know that the war in iraq drew necessary soldiers away from afghanistan, and limits further american influence on iran, syria, and north korea. most importantly, the war has needlessly sacrificed the courage and bravery of american, british, and iraqi civilians and soldiers.

i cannot be sure that i was completely wrong in 2003. i would like to believe that an egalitarian, democratic society was possible. (and, it still may be.) however, i am now completely sure that the comprehensive war effort in iraq has failed. if iraq now blossoms, it will be in spite of our misguided plans.