what is useful may never die

[Peter Kirby]

... or Philo never identifies a "Jesus angel." The angel from Zechariah is not a Jesus

But somehow that thread goes on for 1200+ posts and this idea is still being cited.

[Peter Kirby]

For those interested, here is some scholarship on Philo.

A. J. M. Wedderburn. "Philo's 'Heavenly Man'." Novum Testamentum. Vol. 15, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 301-326. ...

Clearly there is a lot going on here in Philo that is interesting in and of itself. There's no need to add more to Philo than what is found there in order to be a bit wonderstruck at the degree to which Philo has presaged elements of Christian theology. Here we have seen that Philo considers this being to be the firstborn of creation (Col 1:15), to be the "Word" (Logos - John 1:1), to be the heavenly "Man" (1 Cor 15:47), to be named "Sunrise" or "Anatole" (Luke 1:78), and naturally also to be the Messiah or "Christ," among other things.

Just was reading this reference:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXV ... &q&f=false

Note "the Logos' many names listed in Conf. 146."

http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book15.html
And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees, Israel.

Note what is not there and what is.

For those wondering about what Philo said.

[Peter Kirby]

You read in my mind. Alright then. I give up and recognize that Philo is no evidence of any pre-Christian Jesus archangel. I can't believe, however, as Carrier has been so blatantly wrong on this point.

And what would that say about Carrier's scholarship?

[Giuseppe]

You read in my mind. Alright then. I give up and recognize that Philo is no evidence of any pre-Christian Jesus archangel. I can't believe, however, as Carrier has been so blatantly wrong on this point.

And what would that say about Carrier's scholarship?

Carrier (and Doherty and Couchoud before him) have played all their cards on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles: that is their capital sin, in my view. Accepting a genuine Paul is equivalent to see Medusa in her eyes: one becomes simply fossilized and petrified, condamned forever to repeat what Carrier has written in saecula saeculorum.

As to the evidence of a pre-Christian angel named Joshua, I see a more strong clue not in Philo (where there is the angel, but not the name) but in the mythology about the Angel of YHWH.

According to the proverb "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" we have:

• "THE TREE": Exodus 23:20–21. YHWH says he will send an Angel before the Israelites, and warns them to obey the Angel's voice, and that the Angel "will not pardon transgressions" because the YHWH's "name is in him".

• 2) "THE APPLE": Joshua is really before the Israelites, and YHWH's name is really in him.

Apart "Joshua", what is the best candidate for the name of a such Angel?

One may even think that the biblical hero Joshua is the euhemerized version of the Angel of YHWH. I think that this thesis is going to be advanced again in recent scholarship about Two Powers in Heaven (cf. Adam Winn).

[Peter Kirby]

Philo (where there is the angel, but not the name)

Apart "Joshua", what is the best candidate for the name of a such Angel?

There is a name, Israel, used by Philo for "the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels."

But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God's First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were.

And many names are his, for he is called, "the Beginning," and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His image, and "he that sees," that is Israel.

καϊ γάρ άρχή και όνομα θεοΰ καϊ λόγος και ό κατ' εικόνα άνθρωπος καϊ ό ορών, Ισραήλ, προσαγορεύεται

So Philo does give the Logos the name "Israel."

[Giuseppe]

It seems that some Christians opted for "Joshua" just in virtue of the biblical Joshua:

viewtopic.php?p=176291#p176291

(not as a mere "type", but just as the 'real' thing)

[Peter Kirby]

It seems that some Christians opted for "Joshua" just in virtue of the biblical Joshua:

viewtopic.php?p=176291#p176291

(not as a mere "type", but just as the 'real' thing)

That's cool.

[Peter Kirby]

And Carrier's fictions will continue to be referenced. The same people will ignore the facts.

[Secret Alias]

I know I've mentioned this on a number of occasions and it never gets much pull but when we think about "Jewish" culture in Europe only the most backward, the most hostile to the Gentiles in each and every generation is recognized as "Jewish." The people like Philo, those who embrace the world around them are somehow ignored or viewed as "hybrid." That's unfortunate because if you believe that truth is universal (which it must be) Christianity necessarily appropriated some elements of "Judaism" which "Judaism" necessarily had to get rid of or lose because it might mean their own absorption into the whole.

Take for example the prohibition from eating shellfish or pork. Not in the 10 commandments. Circumcision. Not in the 10. I was just eating a lot of shrimp in NY. I had a shrimp salad from Eataly (highly recommended). This is Moses's innovation.

Surely some Jews in every age realized that the dietary restrictions were man-made.

My point here is that when I was growing up in household dominated by a Jewess who happened to have been of priestly lineage Judaism meant one thing and only one thing. "Be a mensch." There was some idealized human being - a Man - who acted righteously. That's all that being Jewish means to me today. Don't behave like a sleazy piece of shit.

[Peter Kirby]

Seems like a good point.