Plutarch on Osiris:But Joshua is "safety of the Lord," a name for the best possible state. For states are better than the individuals who embody them, as music is better than the musician and medicine than the physician, and every art than every artist, better both in everlastingness and in power and in unerring mastery over its subject matter. The state is everlasting, active, perfect; the individual is mortal, acted on, imperfect; and the imperishable is higher and greater than the mortal, the acting cause than that on which it acts, and the perfect than the imperfect. Thus in the above also we see the coin which represents the man re-minted in a better form.
The Gospel of Thomas and Plato : A Study of the Impact of Platonism on the Fifth Gospel By Ivan Miroshnikov
To me, Philo's Joshua and Plutarch's Osiris have a very similar role in these two quotes. Philo says the state(Joshua) is everlasting, active, perfect. Plutarch says the soul of Osiris is eternal and everlasting. Philo says the individual(as opposed to the State/Joshua) is mortal, acted on, imperfect. Plutarch says the body of Osiris suffers dissolution and destruction. Plutarch considers Osiris to be the Logos so could Joshua in Philo be something like the Logos or am I misunderstanding Philo's Joshua?The two aspects of Osiris are also identified with his body and soul. Whereas the soul of Osiris is eternal and imperishable, his body suffers dissolution and destruction. According to Plutarch, “that which is and is intelligible and good is superior to destruction and change; but the images from it with which the sensible and corporeal is impressed, and the principles, forms, and likenesses which this takes upon itself, like impressions of seals in wax, are not permanently lasting, but disorder and disturbance overtakes them” (Is. Os. 373a; trans. F. C. Babbitt, altered). Thus, the body of Osiris is the sum-total of forms immanent in matter.201 His soul, in turn, should be understood as the sum-total of the transcendent forms, described in 375a–b, where Plutarch says that whereas “the things that are scattered in objects liable to be affected” (trans. J. G. Griffiths) are subject to destruction, “God’s principles, forms, and emanations abide in heaven and stars and never change.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s ... #The_Logos Philo views the High Priest as the Logos.
So wouldn't Philo consider the High Priest Joshua in Zech 6: 11 to be the logos? Especially since he describes the name Joshua as being a state very similar if not exactly like the Logos?The Logos is also designated as "high priest", in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men