Author of John copied Philo ?

[Murad]

Quote from wiki:

Hymn to the Word

This prologue is intended to identify Jesus as the eternal Word (Logos) of God.[20] Thus John asserts Jesus' innate superiority over all divine messengers, whether angels or prophets.[7] Here John adapts the doctrine of the Logos, God's creative principle, from Philo, a 1st-century Hellenized Jew.[7]

Philo had adopted the term Logos from Greek philosophy, using it in place of the Hebrew concept of Wisdom (sophia) as the intermediary (angel) between the transcendent Creator and the material world.[7] Some scholars argue that the prologue was taken over from an existing hymn and added at a later stage in the gospel's composition.[20]


Logos

The Jewish philosopher Philo merged these two themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world. The evangelist adapted Philo's description of the Logos, applying it to Jesus, the incarnation of the Logos.[10]

We can see from here; the frequently quoted John 1:1-3, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)

So we have a very, very serious question here; the author of John, copied the doctrine of logos from Philo; and presented it as "Inspired from God/Word of God"; which many Christians believe. But in fact; the idea of John 1:1-3 existed decades before the Gospel of John existed. And by the way; the doctrine of logos was originally created by a Jew(Philo), not a Christian, so it kinda debunks trinitarian claims.

Question for debate:
1) When one copies material and presents it as his own; thats what we call plagiarism; how is plagiarised material considered 'Word Of God' by Christians?

[Mithrae]

Your first question is loaded; where did John claim that the concept of the Logos was his own original idea?

One need not make a specific claim in presenting an idea as their own. All they need do is "borrow" the idea or copy the text without acknowledging its true source.

I don't see you referencing Socrates or Aristotle or Descartes or Hume every time you ask someone to justify their claims; by your reasoning, your posts are therefore without knowledge.

EXACTLY what CLAIM have I made when I ask for justification?

You're 'borrowing' an idea - that claims require justification - introduced and developed by philosophers across thousands of years. Since you tend not to acknowledge the true source/s of the idea, by your reasoning we should conclude that you are presenting the idea as your own and that you actually don't have knowledge about it.

I'd also suggest that not many Christians claim his ideas about the Logos were "personal knowledge" in any case, so your point seems irrelevant.

Do Christians (who are aware of "John's logos doctrine") attribute the idea to John?

I don't think I've ever seen it called 'John's logos doctrine' - simply the 'logos doctrine.' Certainly many Christians wouldn't know the idea was around before John, and by the same token many Christians do know that.

More broadly, I've seen any number of cases in which posters in a debate forum draw on each other's ideas and methods of argument for their own posts.

If I adopt a concept originated by others, would it be appropriate for it to be referred to as "the Zzyzx doctrine" (or idea, or plan)?

Again, this is missing the point. John did not claim the concept of the logos as his own. As with your evidentiary epistemology, or any number of ideas and methods of argument used frequently around here, many of John's peers and readers would have been previously familiar with the concept. You seem to think he was under some obligation to write "This concept was developed by earlier Greek philosophers, adapted to a Jewish setting by Philo and now I'm using it in a slightly different context again." In my opinion, that position would be absurd.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your first question is loaded; where did John claim that the concept of the Logos was his own original idea?

One need not make a specific claim in presenting an idea as their own. All they need do is "borrow" the idea or copy the text without acknowledging its true source.

I don't see you referencing Socrates or Aristotle or Descartes or Hume every time you ask someone to justify their claims; by your reasoning, your posts are therefore without knowledge.

EXACTLY what CLAIM have I made when I ask for justification?

You're 'borrowing' an idea - that claims require justification - introduced and developed by philosophers across thousands of years. Since you tend not to acknowledge the true source/s of the idea, by your reasoning we should conclude that you are presenting the idea as your own and that you actually don't have knowledge about it.

CORRECTION: Forum Rules require that claims be substantiated. I did not borrow the concept from philosophers across thousands of years. You ARE familiar with Forum Rules, arent you?

That is certainly a stretch to try to find a criticism, isnt it?

Again, I make no claim when I ask for justification of what has been said.

I'd also suggest that not many Christians claim his ideas about the Logos were "personal knowledge" in any case, so your point seems irrelevant.

Do Christians (who are aware of "John's logos doctrine") attribute the idea to John?

I don't think I've ever seen it called 'John's logos doctrine' - simply the 'logos doctrine.'

Link

Also, see below for use as Johns Logo Doctrine by Bible Research (in bold for easy recognition).

More broadly, I've seen any number of cases in which posters in a debate forum draw on each other's ideas and methods of argument for their own posts.

If I adopt a concept originated by others, would it be appropriate for it to be referred to as "the Zzyzx doctrine" (or idea, or plan)?

Again, this is missing the point. John did not claim the concept of the logos as his own.

Notice that I clearly said referred to as the Zzyzx doctrine NOT that Zzyzx claims the doctrine.

Like John (whoever he might have been), I would make no claim but simply present the doctrine (borrowed from others) and it could be referred to as Zzyzx doctrine (by others).

As with your evidentiary epistemology, or any number of ideas and methods of argument used frequently around here, many of John's peers and readers would have been previously familiar with the concept.

I do not purport to know whether contemporaries of John would have been previously familiar with the concept " but refer to modern readers. Do you have such knowledge?

You seem to think he was under some obligation to write "This concept was developed by earlier Greek philosophers, adapted to a Jewish setting by Philo and now I'm using it in a slightly different context again."

I have no such thoughts. Instead, I observe that John apparently took an older concept and adapted it to Christianity.

John 1 differs radically from philosophic usage. For the Greeks, Logos was essentially reason; for John, essentially word. Language common to Philo's and the NT has led many to see John as Philo's debtor. But one refers naturally to Philo's Logos as "It," to John's as "He." Philo came no nearer than Plato to a Logos who might be incarnate, and he does not identify Logos and Messiah. John's Logos is not only God's agent in creation; He is God, and becomes incarnate, revealing, and redeeming.

The source of John's Logos doctrine is in the person and work of the historical Christ. "Jesus is not to be interpreted by Logos: Logos is intelligible only as we think of Jesus" (W. F. Howard, IB, VIII, 442). Its expression takes its suitability primarily from the OT connotation of "word" and its personification of wisdom. Christ is God's active Word, his saving revelation to fallen man. It is not accidental that both the gospel and Christ who is its subject are called "the word." But the use of "Logos" in the contemporary hellenistic world made it a useful "bridge" word.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/logos.htm

In my opinion, that position would be absurd.

The straw man you construct is absurd.



(Edited so the link wouldn't distort the page)

[Murad]

If you want to ascribe the contents of the Gospels to oral tradition then you will have to admit that Jesus Christ actually existed and rose from the dead.
Remember that a community of people would not orally pass on stories or events if they were not of great magnitude and if they did not actually happen. An event would generally not be orally transmitted if it was fiction and if it was not of great magnitude.

Do you agree doctrine & personal opinion could shroud the 'Oral Tradition'?
Jesus existed... yes; no doubt a man named Jesus walked around.
But the hearsay that his disciples heard does not prove his death; i think we should continue this topic in our head-to-head debate.

Very, very, very minor discrepencies. Every single Cross says "The King of the Jews." Luke and Mark are identical and Matthew and John are also identical. Also notice that these are omitted discrepencies. Since Mark wrote first and his inscription is the most basic his is the correct one that was on the cross verbatim.

Minor discrepencies; yes.
So it seems the 3 other canonical Gospels altered the Original inscription(of Mark) by adding more words.
Well this raises a few sub questions:
1) If it was God that inspired the biblical authors; why did he give different impressions to the different Gospels?
2)Do you agree these small discrepencies can create huge mis-understandings if they existed in certain places?
3)How can you be sure whether the NT doesn't contain other 'minor' discrepencies(For example the Gospel of John puts numerous words in Jesus' mouth that didn't exist in the 3 prior Gospels)

The explanation that the eyewitness John wrote the Gospel of John is supported by the text itself. How If it was not an eye witness, then how was the information about Jesus Christ recieved by the writer?

Like all the other Gnostic Gospels; they were written by historians. By the way; do you have any evidence to prove your belief that John wrote "The Gospel According to John"... You do realise many modern day scholars believe "Mark, Mathhew, Luke, John" were Pen-Names dont you?

Modern scholars also believe that eyewitnesses and the evangelists wrote the accounts. But the explanations that "historians" wrote the Gospels doesn't explain anything. Unless you can give a name or a specific person then your explanation fails because it is simply inadequate.

It may be inadequate; but its of far greater possibility than the actual disciple John writing the Gospel.
Do the comparison; there are numerous Gnostic Gospels that date back to the 2nd - 4th century AD; they were most likely written by historians; why are the 4 canonical Gospels protected from such accusations?
If you can provide any verifable evidence(besides church tradition) that the Disciple John wrote the Gospel of John; i wont make any more accusations regarding the biblical authors.

But here's my evidence:

Point A: John did not use the other Synoptic Gospels as a source.
Point B: John's Gospel is significantly different from the Synoptics in areas such as style, emphasis and demeanor, but agrees with the synoptics on major events in Christ's ministry.
Point C: Since John did not copy from the Synoptics, but lists many events of Jesus' life that agree with the Synoptics (such as the passion narratives), it is reasonable to assume that John wrote from the perspective as an eye-witness.

Point A) In Other words; he did not copy exact quotations like we find in (Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32); nothing big.
Point B) Yes i agree; there are also new phrases that are not found in the other 3 Gospels; but you must remember it was the last of the 4 Canonical Gospels which was written 55-90 years after the dissapearance of Christ; thus the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading 'How to Read Your Bible':
"It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them."
Point C) That assumption can be applied to MOST Gnostic Gospels; and that assumption can be applied to the rest of the canonical Gospels.

Is that the evidence you have to prove the Disciple John was behind the Johannine Texts?

Actually, The beloved disciple (the one whom I believe wrote John's Gospel) was at the foot of the Cross.

The Gospel of John also says that several women and one disciple stood "near the cross", and that Jesus spoke to them from the cross, these were, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clophas, An un-named sister of Jesus' mother, The un-named Beloved Disciple.
Funny its the last & least authentic Gospel that makes such claims.

I understand your argument, but it is not what eyewitness testimony is. Eyewitness testimony does not mean that eyewitness observed with their own eyes every single step of Jesus, rather it means that they lived in the same time period as Jesus and were physically close to the events.

I have no problem with this, but the more logical approach is that the eyewitnesses were historians; thats the more rational option, rather than to make the baseless assertion that the Disciple John wrote it personally (55-90 years after Jesus disappeared).

"After my departure there will arise the ignorant and the crafty, and many things will they ascribe unto Me that I never spake, and many things which I did speak will they withhold (Gospel of the Nazorenes)

What need is their to credit the source? You're applying modern theft laws to the ancient world which isn't productive. The ancient world did not operate by the same laws that the 21st century does.

Plagiarism was common in the ancient world; but in what context are you looking at it?
We are talking about the New Testament, Gods word.
Do you believe 'Holy Revelation' in a 'Holy book' should originate from a Greek Philosopher?
Why do you believe God gave exact quotations from Mark to the authors of 'Luke & Matthew' while he gave completely different phrases like the inscription of the cross for example?

[flitzerbiest]

So it seems the 3 other canonical Gospels altered the Original inscription(of Mark) by adding more words.

Not quite. "Matthew" and "Luke" include material common to Mark and material common to each other but not found in Mark (postulated to have been from a lost book of sayings known in academic circles as "Q"). John consists of substantially different material, with relatively fewer points of commonality compared to the other three.

[Murad]

So it seems the 3 other canonical Gospels altered the Original inscription(of Mark) by adding more words.

Not quite. "Matthew" and "Luke" include material common to Mark and material common to each other but not found in Mark (postulated to have been from a lost book of sayings known in academic circles as "Q"). John consists of substantially different material, with relatively fewer points of commonality compared to the other three.

That statement was made in the context where that the 'inscription' referred to:

And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Matthew 27:37

The inscription of the charge against Him read, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Mark 15:26

Now there was also an inscription above Him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Luke 23:38

Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"John 19:19

And, Yup i agree with your last statement.

[Mithrae]

You're 'borrowing' an idea - that claims require justification - introduced and developed by philosophers across thousands of years. Since you tend not to acknowledge the true source/s of the idea, by your reasoning we should conclude that you are presenting the idea as your own and that you actually don't have knowledge about it.

CORRECTION: Forum Rules require that claims be substantiated. I did not borrow the concept from philosophers across thousands of years. You ARE familiar with Forum Rules, arent you?

That is certainly a stretch to try to find a criticism, isnt it?

If you're asserting that the only reason you request justification for claims is because of forum rules, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Of course that particular rule does stem from the work of previous philosophers, and you tend not to cite the forum rules either, so the point stands even if you yourself do not have an intellectual reason for your requests for evidence.

And it's not criticism; I'm merely pointing out that every single one of us, in every day of our lives (and every post on the forums) makes use of concepts introduced and developed by others, usually without referencing. If you don't like that particular example we could find any number of others: On at least two occasions off the top of my head, I've seen you use the term 'ignostic' without citing Sherwin Wine as the source of the concept.

Once again, by the reasoning you applied to John, that means you are a plagiarist claiming the concept as your own, and not to be trusted.

• Mithrae wrote: Your first question is loaded; where did John claim that the concept of the Logos was his own original idea?
  Zzxyz wrote: One need not make a specific claim in presenting an idea as their own. All they need do is "borrow" the idea or copy the text without acknowledging its true source.

I don't think I've ever seen it called 'John's logos doctrine' - simply the 'logos doctrine.' Certainly many Christians wouldn't know the idea was around before John, and by the same token many Christians do know that.

Link

Also, see below for use as Johns Logo Doctrine by Bible Research (in bold for easy recognition).

Thankyou. As I say, I don't think I'd ever seen that exact description before - the point being that the precise words used don't necessarily give a full perspective on what is meant. Witness the examples you have given, both of which specifically mention the earlier use of the term Logos by Philo and Greek philosophers. Thus, obviously, the term 'John's logos doctrine' isn't being used to imply that John invented the concept of the Logos, merely to distinguish John's particular development of the concept.

With that in mind, to answer your earlier question:

• If I adopt a concept originated by others, would it be appropriate for it to be referred to as "the Zzyzx doctrine" (or idea, or plan)?

In order to distinguish your adaptation of the concept from others' usage, yes that would be appropriate. But even if it weren't, that has no bearing on what the original author had to say.

As with your evidentiary epistemology, or any number of ideas and methods of argument used frequently around here, many of John's peers and readers would have been previously familiar with the concept.

I do not purport to know whether contemporaries of John would have been previously familiar with the concept " but refer to modern readers. Do you have such knowledge?

In one manner or another, it was used by Greek philosophers for centuries before John's time, and was a central concept in the popular Stoic philosophy. It was probably more widely known than the term 'ignosticism,' for example... and you say John was plagiarising because he didn't name an earlier source for the term he used?

You seem to think he was under some obligation to write "This concept was developed by earlier Greek philosophers, adapted to a Jewish setting by Philo and now I'm using it in a slightly different context again."

I have no such thoughts. Instead, I observe that John apparently took an older concept and adapted it to Christianity.

Yes, you do seem to have modified your initial stance quite a bit:

• Post 29: I suggest that a very important aspect of the issue is WHY would "John" (whoever that may have been) copy anything from anyone (if "John" was a credible recorder of events).
  
  Is copying the work of others NOT an admission that one LACKS personal knowledge of that he reports?
  
  Failure to credit sources (plagiarism) reduces credibility; changing the intent of a writing being presented (hijacking) is dishonorable; however, copying has greater implications regarding the veracity of what is presented as "truth".

Refining one's opinions is the purpose of discussion of course.

[WinePusher]

Request for Moderator Intervention!

-Is there any way you can fix this thread? The page has become much wider and abnormal in size.

If you want to ascribe the contents of the Gospels to oral tradition then you will have to admit that Jesus Christ actually existed and rose from the dead. Remember that a community of people would not orally pass on stories or events if they were not of great magnitude and if they did not actually happen. An event would generally not be orally transmitted if it was fiction and if it was not of great magnitude.

Do you agree doctrine & personal opinion could shroud the 'Oral Tradition'?

No because the time gap between the events and the actual writing of the Gospel was very short. There would not have been enough time for the disciples to dilute the history with doctrine, and most doctrine and systematic theology came much later in the early 4th century. If you're contending that the Disciples "made up" stuff and added it to their Gospels then I would request you list specific examples.

Jesus existed... yes; no doubt a man named Jesus walked around. But the hearsay that his disciples heard does not prove his death; I think we should continue this topic in our head-to-head debate.

I've been very busy lately and long posts drain my time. I'll get back to our H2H in several days. But yes, I'll leave the topic of Jesus' death to that thread for now.

Very, very, very minor discrepencies. Every single Cross says "The King of the Jews." Luke and Mark are identical and Matthew and John are also identical. Also notice that these are omitted discrepencies. Since Mark wrote first and his inscription is the most basic his is the correct one that was on the cross verbatim.

Minor discrepencies; yes. So it seems the 3 other canonical Gospels altered the Original inscription(of Mark) by adding more words.

Yes, I would agree with this. They did not alter anything though, they added to the basic inscription and retained the crux of the inscription.

Well this raises a few sub questions:
1) If it was God that inspired the biblical authors; why did he give different impressions to the different Gospels?

This is not how inspiration works. Inspiration does not mean that God dictated the text to the authors word by word. My view of inspiration is very liberal, and it would mean that the authors were moved or motivated to record the events. So this specific error does not affect divine inspiration.

2)Do you agree these small discrepencies can create huge mis-understandings if they existed in certain places?

No. Minor Discrepencies are irrelevant to the overall accuracy of a text. The concensus and agreement amoung the Gospels far outweigh the textual errors, the Gospels agree that the Inscription above Jesus' head read "King of the Jews."

3)How can you be sure whether the NT doesn't contain other 'minor' discrepencies(For example the Gospel of John puts numerous words in Jesus' mouth that didn't exist in the 3 prior Gospels).

If John records Jesus saying things that are a 360 flip of what Jesus says in the other Gospels then I would be very suspecious. If the discrepency in Jesus' sayings between John and the Synoptics were very minor (such as John showing Jesus saying one of two additional parables that are left out of the Synoptics) then I would not be concerned.

Modern scholars also believe that eyewitnesses and the evangelists wrote the accounts. But the explanations that "historians" wrote the Gospels doesn't explain anything. Unless you can give a name or a specific person then your explanation fails because it is simply inadequate.

It may be inadequate; but its of far greater possibility than the actual disciple John writing the Gospel. Do the comparison; there are numerous Gnostic Gospels that date back to the 2nd - 4th century AD; they were most likely written by historians; why are the 4 canonical Gospels protected from such accusations?

Because the Canonical Gospels were written in the late first century which means that the eye witnesses were still alive. As you said, many of the Gnostic Gospels date back to far and rule out eyewitness testimony.

Also, the theology presented in the Gnostic Gospels differs Drastically from the theology presented in the Canonical Gospels. Here is a chart outlining the theological differences between the Canon and the Gospel of Thomas.

But here's my evidence:

Point A: John did not use the other Synoptic Gospels as a source.
Point B: John's Gospel is significantly different from the Synoptics in areas such as style, emphasis and demeanor, but agrees with the synoptics on major events in Christ's ministry.
Point C: Since John did not copy from the Synoptics, but lists many events of Jesus' life that agree with the Synoptics (such as the passion narratives), it is reasonable to assume that John wrote from the perspective as an eye-witness.

Point A) In Other words; he did not copy exact quotations like we find in (Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32); nothing big.

It means he got his information independently from the other Evangelists. The information that John has also correlates with the Synoptics, so John can be considered a reliable Independent Attestation

Point C) That assumption can be applied to MOST Gnostic Gospels; and that assumption can be applied to the rest of the canonical Gospels.

No because the Gnostic Gospels are completely at odds with the Synoptic Gospels. The argument is: The sources of John's information are 1) He wrote from the perspective of an Eyewitness. 2) He copied from other sources. John did not copy from other sources, therefore John wrote as an eyewitness.

Is that the evidence you have to prove the Disciple John was behind the Johannine Texts?

Not only that, the similiarities between the Epistles of John and the Gospel of John give good reason to think that the same John wrote them all.

What need is their to credit the source? You're applying modern theft laws to the ancient world which isn't productive. The ancient world did not operate by the same laws that the 21st century does.

Plagiarism was common in the ancient world; but in what context are you looking at it? We are talking about the New Testament, Gods word.
Do you believe 'Holy Revelation' in a 'Holy book' should originate from a Greek Philosopher?

I believe that the inspiration came into play when the original concept by the Greek Philosopher was utilized in a totally different way. Also, this is pertaining to a small passage in John's Gospel, not the entire New Testament.

Why do you believe God gave exact quotations from Mark to the authors of 'Luke & Matthew' while he gave completely different phrases like the inscription of the cross for example?

I don't believe God gave the exact quotes to Mark. I believe Mark's is the correct in regarsd to verbatim because it is the simplist and is the crux of the inscription.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is there any way you can fix this thread? The page has become much wider and abnormal in size.

In the meantime, I "fix" the problem by identifying and selecting the object or text that causes the thread to be extra-wide, then in my browser, FireFox, I right click on the selection and in the box that appears, click "Remove this object".

That "magically" gets rid of any large image or text string and brings the thread back to normal. Sometimes I have to do that in more than one location if there are quotations of the original.

[WinePusher]

.

Is there any way you can fix this thread? The page has become much wider and abnormal in size.

In the meantime, I "fix" the problem by identifying and selecting the object or text that causes the thread to be extra-wide, then in my browser, FireFox, I right click on the selection and in the box that appears, click "Remove this object".

That "magically" gets rid of any large image or text string and brings the thread back to normal. Sometimes I have to do that in more than one location if there are quotations of the original.

Thanks, but I asked a moderator earlier and they fixed it already, the page looks fine on my end now.

[mich]

Again, goat, to claim it to be a third century document is theoretical at best, since the support of it being written by Hyppolitus is weak. Also, even if it was Josephus, the document would not be pre-christian. The "content" found in the discourse is jewish, not christian.Is it a Hellenized jewish teaching? Could be, but the argument lies in Abraham's bosom and the Logos as being pre christian jewish "concepts", unless you assume that christians, or Philo came up with the idea.

Andre

It certainly isn't Josephus, no matter who it is attributed to..

The terminology is not Jewish at all.

I would say that is it much more Christian that Jewish.

You calim that 'the support is weak'.. yet it has more support than Josephus.

You see, Jospehus would not use the New testament.



There are many references to the New Testament throughout the "Discourse". For example, the division of the just and unjust to the right and left suggests Matthew 25:32-33; the reference to the Bosom of Abraham and the "chaos" clearly are related to the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31); the comparison of the body to seed that has been planted recalls 1Corinthians 15:37-38; and the committing of all judgment to Christ comes from John 5:22. Several of these references are mentioned by William Whiston in his dissertation attempting to prove Josephus was the author (see below).[2]


Sorry, but those reference show it is neither Jewish or 'Pre-Christian'
From the notes


William Whiston in "Dissertation 6", part of the appendix to his Josephus translation, printed the text of this "Discourse" in Greek and maintained that the piece was by Josephus, "preached or written when he was bishop of Jerusalem". [3]


Josephus wasn't a bishop of Jerusalem at all....

It's not jewish.. end of story.

Not only that, but the support for it being hippolytus is stronger than you claim, since it is an extract from a longer piece of work. This longer piece of work can be found at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tical.html

Whether the author was Josephus is not important. The question is whether the Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades is christian or jewish in essence.When I speak of christian elements, I do not mean a different teaching deviating from the Jewish faith but a fullfilled element not found among their writings; such as the salvation of humanity found in Jesus Christ. The discourse is silent to this.

For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoic in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the and of the just, which they see, always smiles them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

According to the christian faith, to die is to be with Christ."You will be with me in Paradise", Jesus said to the thief. While the discourse speaks of the presence of angels among the righteous souls who, in turn, see the face of the fathers, meaning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and "the Just", Jesus is not mentioned at all; the term "the Just" reveals the Jewish view of the Messiah.Since the christians viewed Jesus as the fulfilled prophecy of "the Just", Jesus would have been written instead of the Just, if it had been written by a christian.

Also:

For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.

It is odd, in my opinion, that the name Jesus Christ is not used...God the Word and "the Christ" are terms found within the Jewish theological terminology such as seen in the writings of Philo, who, in turn, was writing about Jewish belief.... not christian.

http://www.socinian.org/philo.html
Philo wrote:
The Logos extending himself from the center to its furthest bounds and from its extremities to the center again, runs nature's unvanquished course joining and binding fast all its parts. For the Father when he begat him constituted him an unbreakable bond of the universe.

Notice how Philo identifies the Word of God as also being the Son of God, as is seen in the discourse?

So, what did (and still do) some of the Jews believe concerning the afterlife?

HyppolitusCHAP. XXII.--BELIEF OF THE ESSENI IN THE RESURRECTION'; THEIR SYSTEM A SUGGESTIVE ONE.
Now the doctrine of the resurrection has also derived support among these; for they acknowledge both that the flesh will rise again, and that it will be immortal, in the same manner as the soul is already imperishable. And they maintain that the soul, when separated in the present life, (departs) into one place, which is well ventilated and lightsome, where, they say, it rests until judgment. And this locality the Greeks were acquainted with by hearsay, and called it "Isles of the Blessed." .

Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 18
3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet;...They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; .

http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/be ... erlife.htm
Judgment Jewish belief
Traditional Judaism includes belief in both heaven and hell, as we will see below. How is one's destination decided? The School of Shammai offered this description:
There will be three groups on the Day of Judgment: one of thoroughly righteous people, one of thoroughly wicked people and one of people in between. The first group will be immediately inscribed for everlasting life; the second group will be doomed in Gehinnom [Hell], as it says, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence" [Daniel 12:2], the third will go down to Gehinnom and squeal and rise again, as it says, "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on My name and I will answer them" [Zechariah 13:9]... [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a]
Advent of the Messianic Era
According to the Talmud[6], the Midrash[7], and the ancient Kabbalistic work, the Zohar[8], the Messiah must arrive before the year 6000 from the time of creation. (According to Orthodox Jewish belief, the Hebrew calendar dates to the time of creation. The year 2010 corresponds to the year 5770 from creation).


Therefore, from the above, we see clearly that the Jews did/do indeed believe in Hades, wherein the souls of the unjust experience sufferings and the just resided in a separate place while enjoying rewards, within a ,well ventilated and lightsome place, called by the greeks the "Isles of the Blessed.".... and Abraham's bosom as refered to by the Jews.
The Logos found in Philo is also seen as the Son of God. He is the "Christ"or Messiah who is to judge the world in the end time.

So, now, what about the discourse being found within the writings of Hyppolitus? If we look at where the discourse is located, it doesn't make any sense. It is found under the heading AGAINST PLATO, ON THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE. If Hyppolitus wrote the discourse on Hades, it is much more probable that it would have been found in the section EXPOSITORY TREATISE AGAINST THE JEWS...however, there is nothing within the discourse on Hades which disagrees with Jewish belief, so I would doubt this as well. In other words, while the discourse of Hades is indeed also found in the writings of Hyppolitus, it still must be misplaced as the discourse has nothing to do with Plato's view of the universe.
As for Josephus, without dogmatically claiming him as the author, being a jew, and a pharisee, he could be a candidate. His style seems to agree with the discourse. He very often starts his thoughts with the word "now", as seen in the introduction of the discourse.

Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the of the good things they see, and rejoice in the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it.

If we compare this statement with one of Josephus' in his Antiquity of the Jews,


Now, as to these matters, every one of my readers may think as he pleases; but I am under a necessity of relating this history as it is described in the sacred books. Antiquity of the Jews Book 3 ch 5

the style of writing seems to agree.

Therefore, to identify the statements within the discourse on Hades concerning the separations found within Hades and the term Abraham's bosom as implying the author "must have borrowed" from the New Testament, as well as the implication of Josephus being a bishop of Jerusalem cannot, in my opinion, come from any serious form of scholarship....unless more evidence is put forward.

Andre