Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus angel

[Giuseppe]

It can mean 'where the sun rises' but it doesn't mean 'east.'

I apologize yet for the off topic, but 'where the sun rises' is very much suggestive to ignore Zech 6:12 as a possible source of inspiration behind Matthew 2:23, via Tsemah meant already as davidic sprout/branch. Only a short comment. No will of polemic.

Instead here I am polemic:

more attention, please. My question precisely was:

Do you deny that Philo, Leg., 3.79–82 is *independent* evidence of the existence of a Jewish archangel named Melchizedek?

In other terms, do you deny that the Carrier's argument (''of the extreme-improbability-of-a-coincidence'') can be applied with success on Philo, Leg., 3.79–82 in order to prove the *independent* existence of a Jewish archangel named Melchizedek?

If Secret Alias answers 'No', then he MUST conclude that Philo allegorized Melchizedek as the Logos, or his beingh high priest as the logos, but only by pure coincidence, ignoring entirely that Melchizedek was considered an archangel at Qumran. Or, in alternative, he MUST deny that Melchizedek was allegorized as the Logos by Philo, following Andrew.

If Secret Alias answers 'Yes', then he MUST explain why Richard Carrier has the right of applying his argument of 'extreme improbability of a coincidence'' on Philo, Leg., 3.79–82 while the same Carrier has not that right (of applying his argument of 'extreme improbability of a coincidence'') on De Confusione Linguarum 62.

I ask the same question to Peter.

In this thesis of 2014 I read:

Most notably, Philo identifies Melchizedek as the logos, linking his royal priesthood and the delivery of bread and wine with his service to “the most high God” (Gen. 14:18) by way of an allegorical lesson. 79

(p. 14)

A note 79 says:

79 Al. Int. III 25.79-26.82; esp. 82. Fred Horton Jr. observes that Melchizedek has no priestly predecessor in the Torah; therefore, Philo’s identification of Melchizedek with logos seems fitting as Melchizedek is necessarily a “self-tutored” initiator. See The Melchizedek Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976), p. 59. Cf. also Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.10.1 where Josephus notes that Melchizedek was “the first priest of God”. See The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publ., 1960).

[Secret Alias]

If Philo was not a key central player in laying down the path to Christianity

That may all be true but he still didn't identify the Logos as being named "Jesus."

[Giuseppe]

If Philo was not a key central player in laying down the path to Christianity

That may all be true but he still didn't identify the Logos as being named "Jesus."

But Philo knew that Joshua son of Josedec in Zech 6:12 was merely a symbol of the figure hailed ANATOLE. The logical inference (that Joshua becomes virtually in his theology a symbol of the Logos) could not escape from his view.

[Secret Alias]

Where is this evidence for it?

[Secret Alias]

Point to a line in Philo that says that exactly

[Giuseppe]

Zechariah 6:11-12

Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Rising, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord.

It's EVIDENT that the crowning of Joshua son of Josedek is symbol of the crowning of a future messiah hailed ANATOLE. This implies that the mortal Joshua is merely a symbol of the future messiah.


So Philo:

"The East," or "Dawn" (Gen. xi. 2), bears two meanings in Scripture, according as it refers to the dawning of light or of shadow in the soul. It is used in the good sense in the account of Paradise (Gen. ii. 8). So in the oracle of one of Moses' companions (Zech. vi. 12), "Behold a man whose name is Dawn or 'Rising'." A most novel title this, if you suppose that a man composed of body and soul is spoken of; but if it be that bodiless man who is identical with the divine image you will confess that the title is most happy. For him hath the Father of the universe raised up to be his oldest or first-begotten Son. "East" occurs in a bad sense in the story of Balak the fool and Balaam (Num. xxiii. 76 f.).

It is notable that these fools "find" the place most fitted for their folly, and "settle" there. Both points are significant.

''a man'' means the future davidic messiah merely symbolized in Zech 6:11-12 by Joshua son of Josedec. The humanity of this ''man'' (not Joshua, but the future messiah) is denied by Philo when he says:

A most novel title this, if you suppose that a man composed of body and soul is spoken of;

But Philo follows:

but if it be that bodiless man who is identical with the divine image

Here he is introducing the strict identity:

''man'' hailed as Anatole = the Logos.

And then:

you will confess that the title is most happy. For him hath the Father of the universe raised up to be his oldest or first-begotten Son.

The future messiah - says Philo - will be the archangelic Logos, not a man composed of body and soul.

By logical inference, Joshua son of Josedec - who was already the mere symbol of the future davidic human messiah according to the traditional reading of Zech 6:11-12 - NOW with Philo that same Joshua son of Josedec becomes virtually the mere symbol of the future archangelic Logos-Messiah. And Philo could only realize that this is the clear logical implication of the his same words.


But compare this point in Philo with another:

Moreover, God made Melchisedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, for that is the interpretation of this name, "his own high Priest," without having previously mentioned any particular action of his, but merely because he had made him a king, and a lover of peace, and especially worthy of his priesthood. For he is called a just king, and a king is the opposite of a tyrant, because the one is the interpreter of law, and the other of lawlessness. Therefore the tyrannical mind imposes violent and mischievous commands on both soul and body, and such as have a tendency to cause violent suffering, being commands to act according to vice, and to indulge the passions with enjoyment. But the other, the kingly mind, in the first place, does not command, but rather persuades, since it gives recommendations of such a character, that if guided by them, life, like a vessel, will enjoy a fair voyage through life, being directed in its course by a good governor and pilot; and this good pilot is right reason. We may therefore call the tyrannical mind the ruler of war, and the kingly mind the guide to peace, that is Salem. And this kingly mind shall bring forth food full of cheerfulness and joy; for "he brought forth bread and wine," which the Ammonites and Moabites were not willing to give to the beholder, that is Israel; by reason of such unwillingness they are shut out from the companionship and assembly of God. For the Ammonites being they who are sprung from the outward sense of the mother, and the Moabites, who originate in the mind of the father, are two different dispositions, which look upon the mind and the outward sense as the efficient causes of all existing things, but take no notice of God. Therefore "they shall not come," says Moses, "into the assembly of the Lord, because they did not come to meet you with bread and water when you came out of Egypt," that is, out of the passions.
But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and shall give your souls to drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine, in order that they may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself. For LOGOS is a priest, having, as its inheritance the true God, and entertaining lofty and sublime and magnificent ideas about him, "for he is the priest of the most high God." Not that there is any other God who is not the most high; for God being one, is in the heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other besides Him." But he sets in motion the notion of the Most High, from his conceiving of God not in a low and grovelling spirit, but in one of exceeding greatness, and exceeding sublimity, apart from any conceptions of matter.

Against Andrew, 'reason' is not meant here instead of LOGOS, because just before Philo wrote:

...in order that they may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself.

if the human reason is the 'sobriety itself', the LOGOS is 'more sober than sobriety itself'', being a ''divine intoxication''. Clearly here is meant a Reason of superior order: the spiritual possession by the archangelic LOGOS.

Note that then Philo is allegorizing Melchizedek as the symbol of the Logos, and Melchizedek (''Prince of Peace'') is contrasted by the 'ruler of War' just as the ANATOLE/Logos is contrasted by the ANATOLE/Balaam.

Note especially that principal difference between Melchizedek and Joshua son of Josedec: Melchizedek is the archangelic Logos because he is the self-made-high-priest. No man did make him as high priest, but only God. Joshua was made high priest by a man, not by God. But he is important insofar he is, according to Zech 6:11-12, the symbol of the future messiah (the Logos).

Note that Philo ignores Melchizedec just as he ignores Joshua: Philo is interested in their being High Priests because is their being high priests that make them symbols of the Logos, respectively.

[andrewcriddle]

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... book1.html has an interesting account of the human mind in a state of sober intoxication

(69) So then after all the other things, as has been said before, Moses says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. And he says well; for nothing that is born on the earth is more resembling God than man. And let no one think that he is able to judge of this likeness from the characters of the body: for neither is God a being with the form of a man, nor is the human body like the form of God; but the resemblance is spoken of with reference to the most important part of the soul, namely, the mind: for the mind which exists in each individual has been created after the likeness of that one mind which is in the universe as its primitive model, being in some sort the God of that body which carries it about and bears its image within it. In the same rank that the great Governor occupies in the universal world, that same as it seems does the mind of man occupy in man; for it is invisible, though it sees everything itself; and it has an essence which is undiscernible, though it can discern the essences of all other things, and making for itself by art and science all sorts of roads leading in divers directions, and all plain; it traverses land and sea, investigating everything which is contained in either element. (70) And again, being raised up on wings, and so surveying and contemplating the air, and all the commotions to which it is subject, it is borne upwards to the higher firmament, and to the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. And also being itself involved in the revolutions of the planets and fixed stars according to the perfect laws of music, and being led on by love, which is the guide of wisdom, it proceeds onwards till, having surmounted all essence intelligible by the external senses, it comes to aspire to such as is perceptible only by the intellect: (71) and perceiving in that, the original models and ideas of those things intelligible by the external senses which it saw here full of surpassing beauty, it becomes seized with a sort of sober intoxication like the zealots engaged in the Corybantian festivals, and yields to enthusiasm, becoming filled with another desire, and a more excellent longing, by which it is conducted onwards to the very summit of such things as are perceptible only to the intellect, till it appears to be reaching the great King himself. And while it is eagerly longing to behold him pure and unmingled, rays of divine light are poured forth upon it like a torrent, so as to bewilder the eyes of its intelligence by their splendour. But as it is not every image that resembles its archetypal model, since many are unlike, Moses has shown this by adding to the words "after his image," the expression, "in his likeness," to prove that it means an accurate impression, having a clear and evident resemblance in form.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

None of what Giuseppe has cited is Philo identifying the Logos who is the heavenly anthropos being named Jesus

[Giuseppe]

Andrew, but then is the 'sober intoxication' contrasted by 'divine intoxication' ? The former being human, the latter divine, and therefore worth of being called 'possession by the archangelic Logos'?

Apart that, I see a curious fact in Josephus.

The names of the high priests that succeed one after the other to Ananus are both Jesus:
1) Jesus ben Damneus
2) Jesus bar Gamaliel.

I wonder if this was a mere coincidence. I remember that Fletcher-Louis's research puts much emphasis on the fact that Jesus was considered the High Priest par excellence (so that, for example, in its presence the disciples could seize the ears of corn even on Saturday without to go against the Law). Was there an old tradition to call 'Jesus' the high priest, since Zech 6:12 on forward?

None of what Giuseppe has cited is Philo identifying the Logos who is the heavenly anthropos being named Jesus

And de facto I think that according to Philo, Jesus is only the simbolic name of the Logos, since the guy named Joshua son of Josedec is only the symbol of the Logos. To be a symbol of x doesn't mean to be strictu sensu x. If Carrier thinks that 'Jesus son of Josedec' is strictu sensu the Logos, then Carrier is simply wrong (said by a his fan).

[Secret Alias]

I think that ...

Exactly. When the world starts caring about what Giuseppe thinks this will be a decisive point in determining his thoughts . But it is not valuable on its own in determining what Philo thought. Giuseppe has yet to address that with anything resembling actual evidence from Philo's writings that support his own prejudices