Is Philo Referencing the contemporary Jewish Temple of Alexandria? [Part Two]

I know that what I am saying about this 'Jewish temple in Alexandria' must sound crazy to most people. After all, the 'experts' are over here telling everyone that Josephus is always right, the rabbinic authorities are always wrong. But I just ask my readership - how could a whole body of literature which included Alexandrian Jews be so clueless as NOT TO know where a rival temple was located in Egypt?

Falsifying Josephus would be quite easy by contrast. It is one tradition which already exists in a multitude of corrupt forms - viz. the 'Josippon,' Hegesippus and countless other variants. I have already pointed in my Real Messiah to another such disagreement between the two sources - the rabbinic authorities say there was only one Agrippa, 'Josephus' i.e. the body of literature which survived through Christian sources says there were two king Agrippas.

According to my theory the Christian sources developed Josephus' original discussion of Onias's establishing a temple in Heliopolis was developed from Isa 19:18. I believe the rabbinic sources - most coming from the tannaitic period - who say that the Egyptian temple of Judaism was founded at Alexandria.

I have started to show how Philo's writings do seem to reference the existence of an Alexandrian temple once they are scrutinized carefully. Now let's focus on a particular historical event in which Philo was deeply involved - the attempt of the Emperor Gaius 'Caligula' to place a statue of himself 'in the Jewish temple.'

Scholars are preconditioned to think that the only temple which Gaius tried to influence was the temple of Jerusalem. Yet a careful examination of the discrepancies between Josephus's account and Philo's opens the door another possibility.

Indeed as Smallwood notes "the versions of the two Jewish writers differ considerably, both in the detail of the incident and in the indications which they give of its chronology, and in some places they contradict rather than supplement each other. The discrepancies have been the discussion of much discussion and several attempts have been made to reconcile them or dovetail them into one another. On general grounds Philo is, in this present writer's opinion to be preferred as an authority for the incident." [p. 32]

Among the reasons that Smallwood provides for her degrading of Josephus's value "Josephus's account includes 'fairy-tale' elements, the presence of which tells against the credibility of the whole - rain from a cloudless sky, a sumptuous banquet followed by the offer a boon, and an order to commit suicide, delayed in transit until it was invalid. [Also], the fact that the chronological indications which Josephus gives for the opening of the episode are not acceptable throws doubt on the reliability of the rest of his narrative. For these reasons in the account of the general course of events here given Philo's version is followed in preference to that of Josephus, where the two seem irreconcilable." [ibid]

Indeed I would go far beyond Smallwood's cautious approach. What is most curious about the narrative in Josephus, though, is that it is in some of the oldest texts of the Jewish historian THE ONLY EVENT referenced in the reign of Gaius.

The Slavonic text is particularly interesting (though the Josippon follows the same details). Jesus' death is actually placed in the transition from the year of Tiberius' rule to Gaius (37 CE). So we read in a long section not found in the Greek texts of Josephus:

So they went and informed Pilate and he sent and killed many of the people and brought in that wonder-worker [Jesus]. After inquiring about him [Pilate] understood that he was a doer of good, not of evil and not a rebel nor one desirous of kingship and he released him. For he had cured his wife who was dying. And he went to the usual places and performed his usual deeds. And [once] again, as more people gathered around him and he became renowned for his works more than all [others] again the lawyers were struck with envy [against him]. And they gave thirty talents to Pilate that they should kill him. And he took it and gave them liberty to carry out there wishes themselves. And they sought out a suitable time to kill him. For they had given Pilate thirty talents earlier that he should give Jesus up to them.

And they crucified him against [the] ancestral law and they greatly reviled him. And then [they] raised a second disturbance. For Pilate had taken the holy treasure called the Corban [and] spent it on the building of the water pipes wishing to bring Jordan [water] from 400 stades away.

And when the people were shouting [out] at him he sent [his men] and beat them with cudgels. And three thousand were trampled as they ran away and the rest fell silent.

A short while afterwards Herod went to Tiberius (Gk. Gaius) so that he might honor his domain with a royal title. And Caesar was furious with him because of his insatiability. He took away his domain and added it to Agrippa's and banished him to Spain together with Herodias.

And (Gaius) extended his wantonness against the Jews and sent Petronius his commander with troops against Jerusalem, to set up the abomination of his effigy in the temple. If they prevented it they were to be killed and the whole nation exterminated.

While he was on his way, news of this reached the Jews. Some gave it credit and were terrified but others did not credit [it].

When he arrived in Ptolemais, the Jews met him on the plain with their wives and children imploring him for the sake of the Law of their fathers and for their own sake. And he spared the people and left there, his troops and his effigy. This is a town of Galilee built on the sea coast in a great plain, surrounded by mountains. And on its eastern flank is Galilee 60 stades away and to the south it is 100 stades to Carmel.

And close by the town there is a river called Beleus near which stands the tomb of Memnon. And in this place there is a round and deep field. And in it when the wind blows the sand it in it turns to glass. And though many boats come and take it it does not run short. For there is a wind ceaselessly, it blows the sand in, and fills the place up. For when it brims over, the wind returns the glass to its former place and then it becomes sand.

The Jews met him on the plain with their wives and children imploring him for the sake of the Law of their fathers and for their own sake. And he spared the people and left there, his troops and his effigy. Petronius advanced towards Galilee and summoned all the people and threatened them with the power of Rome and the awe of Caesar. And he showed that their plea was vain and useless, since all nations venerated the effigy of Caesar equally with the other gods and they alone opposed this as if commencing hostilities.

But they were grieving because of their Law and their ancestral custom, since it was improper to set any image [either] in the temple or in an ordinary place. Petronius answered, "it is my duty to protect the image of my master. For if I transgress and spare you, I shall then justly perish. And the one who sent me not I will start hostilities. For I also like us am carrying out orders."

And all the people cried out, "we are ready to accept suffering and torment for the Law."

And Petronius quieted their clamor and said, "Can you fight Caesar?" But they said, "For Caesar and the men of Rome we sacrifice twice a day to God. But if he wishes to set up his effigy in our land then he shall first have to slaughter the Jewish nations. And we shall prepare our necks for slitting together with our wives and children."

Then hearing this Petronius was amazed and took pity on them seeing how in their great courage they were scornful of death and misery of all kinds.

And again he summoned the nobles sometimes begging them, sometimes reminding them of Gaius' rage and of the pressure he was under. And for fifty days the people went idle since Petronius did not allow them to work or sow [their crops]. And when he saw their invincible endurance he dismissed them, saying "I must suffer with you either I shall with God's assistance persuade Gaius to accept your wishes and win sweet deliverance together with you or, in the event of Caesar's wrath, I shall joyfully give up my life on behalf of so many folk."

And taking his troops he marched from Ptolemais to Antioch. And he immediately sent from there to Caesar [news] of his arrival and of the Jewish petition [telling Caesar that] if he wished to hold the petition and the country and not to lose men, he should grant them their desire to observe [their] law.

When Gaius received the missive he sent [Petronius] a harsh reply and sentenced him to death by the sword since he had a servant sluggish in carrying out his orders. But it happened that those bringing the letter were drowned at sea. And others arrived first, announcing the death of Gaius. [Slavonic Josephus II.9.5.178 - 210]

There are a number of important points that have to be brought up in succession here. The first is the dating of the manuscript. The Slavonic manuscripts of Josephus, CAN'T be explained simply by assuming that Christians in Russia 'added things' to the Jewish Josippon tradition.

Take the example of the account of Jesus' crucifixion just cited. How can it be argued that a Russian scribe of the tenth century produced so many legendary variants (viz. Jesus healing Pilate's wife, Pilate sending Jesus away only to be brought back later, the dating of the Passion to 37 CE etc.)? These must have been created by a community who possessed a different gospel narrative which takes us back likely to the tradition associated with Hegesippus. It is for this reason that I have always argued that the traditions of Josephus which appear 'normal' to us are actually 'corrected' versions of material found in the Hegesippus.

Once this ignored fact is acknowledged then the fact that the Hegesippus does not mention this silly narrative about Petronius siding with the Jews against Gaius is extremely important. I ask my readers, if we stand back from this familiar narrative - does anyone REALLY BELIEVE the whole claim that a Roman governor deciding to die alongside the Jewish people? I certainly don't.

Petronius's exclamation "I shall joyfully give up my life on behalf of so many folk" goes beyond anything concocted in Spielberg's Shindler's List!!!!

But then not only do we have to accept this one unbelievable occurrence but also the fact that not only does the letter containing Petronius' death sentence miraculously 'disappear into the sea' (then how does Josephus know that it was sent!) but we also have to reconcile this silly narrative with a completely different account that appears in Philo.

In Philo's account as we shall see Gaius changes his mind about the statue after a consultation with Agrippa. The event clearly occurs long before Caligula's death.

How on earth do scholars reconcile these two accounts? I really don't understand how it is possible when it isn't even possible to assign a date to the 'non event.' If we really think about it, all we have is a claim that a statue of Caligula WAS BEING SENT to Jerusalem.

For two completely different reasons in our surviving texts of Josephus and Philo it never ends up arriving. What's more, all historical documents connected with this event end up being buried at sea.

I don't think that there ever was an attempt by Gaius to put one of his statues in the Jerusalem temple. I think the original context was limited to Alexandria and the ongoing struggles between the Jewish and Greek populations in the city.

For if we really look at matters a statue of Caligula WAS certainly placed in the holiest Jewish sanctuary of Alexandria. Philo writes:

All the synagogues that they were unable to destroy by burning and razing them to the ground, because a great number of Jews lived in a dense mass in the neighbourhood, they injured and defaced in another manner, simultaneously with a total overthrow of their laws and customs; for they set up in every one of them images of Gaius, and in the greatest, and most conspicuous, and most celebrated of them they erected a brazen statue of him [Caligula] borne on a four-horse chariot. [Embassy Gaius XX.134]

Indeed before we are too quick to identify this 'greatest' building of the Jews as a mere synagogue let's remember something that Philo writes in Special Laws Book Two namely that "each house is invested with the character and dignity of a temple." [Spec Laws XXVII.148]

The point is that the narrative about Gaius attempting to place a statue in the temple of Jerusalem is little more than a distraction from the real story - viz. that the Greeks of Alexandria were trying to demonstrate that Jews were disloyal to Gaius BY PLACING THE IMAGE IN THEIR MOST HOLY BUILDING IN ALEXANDRIA.

If you read the Embassy to Gaius narrative it makes perfect sense until the moment that it introduces the events in Judea. There is an inherent difficulty that a later editor did his best to transform.

I believe that Philo originally referenced the existence of TWO temples which Gaius was attempting to subvert. The temple in Jerusalem which Agrippa's petition managed to spare and the Alexandrian temple which the Greeks had already transformed into a 'temple of Gaius.'

The important thing to note is that unlike Josephus' narrative Agrippa manages to get Gaius to change his mind about the whole enterprise:

Therefore being somewhat appeased, at least as far as appearance went, he condescended to return a somewhat favourable answer, granting to Agrippa that highest and greatest of all favours, the consent that this erection of his statue should not take place; and he commanded letters to be written to Publius Petronius the governor of Syria, enjoining him not to allow any alterations or innovations to be made with respect to the temple of the Jews. [Embassy Gaius 333]

But then at the same time the narrative awkwardly continues with the claim that Gaius DIDN'T change his mind:

What advantage, then, was gained? some one will say; for even when they were quiet, Gaius was not quiet; but he had already repented of the favour which he had showed to Agrippa, and had re-kindled the desires which he had entertained a little while before; for he commanded another statue to be made, of colossal size, of brass gilt over, in Rome, no longer moving the one which had been made in Sidon, in order that the people might not be excited by its being moved, but that while they remained in a state of tranquillity and felt released from their suspicions, it might in a period of peace be suddenly brought to the country in a ship, and be suddenly erected without the multitude being aware of what was going on.[Embassy Gaius 337]

What is going on here? I am quite certain that the petition by Agrippa is the authentic part of the narrative and this late addition was added by a later editor to square with the inaccurate testimony found in the texts of Josephus that were circulating in the fourth century.

Indeed if we look carefully there is a THIRD reference to Gaius's attempts to transform a Jewish temple and this time it is claimed to have been successful:

So great therefore was his inequality of temper towards every one, and most especially towards the nation of the Jews to which he was most bitterly hostile, and accordingly beginning in Alexandria he took from them all their synagogues there, and in the other cities, and filled them all with images and statues of his own form; for not caring about any other erection of any kind, he set up his own statue every where by main force; and the great temple in the holy city, which was left untouched to the last, having been thought worthy of all possible respect and preservation, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that he might call it the temple of the new Jupiter, the illustrious Gaius. [Embassy Gaius 346]

I think the reference here is to the Alexandrian TEMPLE which was indeed transformed into a 'temple of Gaius' with the addition of the statue mentioned at the very beginning of the letter. The addition of the words "in the holy city" by a later editor obscures the fact that he is actually talking about a temple being present in Alexandria.

When was the material transformed? Eusebius provides us a clue.

Remember when I said that the Latin text of Hegesippus didn't mention anything about Gaius trying to place a statue in the temple of Jerusalem? Now look at Eusebius' summary of the parallels between Philo and Josephus here:

After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. These things we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as follows:

So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the other cities, and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which had hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger Caius.

Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor, are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the title, On the Virtues. With him agrees also Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour.

Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows: Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns, to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city.[Church History ii.6.1 - 4]

It seems impossible for me to believe that if the texts of Josephus that were known to Eusebius HAD A MENTION of this stupid incident that Eusebius would have mentioned here. The implication is that they didn't and the whole fantastic details of our present Josephus narrative were added later. It is also worth noting that Philo's On the Virtues survives and there is no mention anywhere of this incident.

In other words, someone was deliberately reworking BOTH narratives to obscure what I see as the original understanding - viz. the Alexandrians managed to transform the Alexandrian temple of Judaism into a temple of Gaius.

The fact that no one wants us to recognize of course is that there ever was a temple of Judaism in Alexandria ...