[W]here did Philo come up with the angel (not its names or even its presence in Zechariah 6), that’s a much more complex project to answer (because it’s a complex concept deriving from his elaborate understanding of emanation theory and angelology; he explains his reasoning in bits and pieces everywhere he mentions this angel, and some of those mentions provide surrounding context providing even more information about his thinking on this), though that project faces the same issues (e.g. he seems to be referencing a well-known entity in Jewish angelology, not something he invented, so this might not be just Philo but a broad Rabbinical development that only just happens to first be attested in Philo because that’s the only pertinent work on the subject to survive from this period).
--Comment by Richard Carrier on November 25, 2022 at 3:37 pm per "The Curious Case of Gnostic Informant: Reaction vs. Research". Richard Carrier Blogs. 22 November 2022
I have since publishing this article found many more instances in the literature of my position on the Philonic-era understanding of the “Anatolê” in Zech. 6:12 meaning, indeed, Jesus (and not, as it might originally have indicated, Zerubabbel).
In the peer-reviewed Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5.2 (Spring 1994), Frank Holbrook, editor of that selfsame journal, wrote “Christ’s Inauguration as King-Priest,” wherein he assumes that by the first century the Anatolê came to be understood as Joshua, regardless of what was originally intended.
In the peer-reviewed Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984), Bruce Malchow wrote “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1,” in which he points out this verse was “probably originally a description of the messianic crowning of Zerubbabel,” but “after he disappeared and the high priest became the political leader of the community, someone altered the text and substituted Joshua’s name for Zerubbabel’s,” and “Thus, the passage became a description of a royal priest,” and therefore the Anatolê was switched from its original meaning, as a title of Zerubbabel, into a title of Jesus—all before the time of Philo.
In the peer-reviewed Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987), Beth Glazier-McDonald wrote “Malʾak habbərît: The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1,” in which she quotes Malchow (above), and concurs in taking this verse to by then have been understood (indeed, even intentionally) as referring to Jesus, rather than Zerubbabel.
In the peer-reviewed Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34.2 (June 1991), Meredeth Kline wrote “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” in which he argues that Jesus had come to be understood as the Anatolê, unifying the offices of king and priest (and subsequent references to there being two were regarded as the two offices, not two persons, thus eclipsing any role there may have originally been for Zerubbabel).
--Comment by Richard Carrier on April 17, 2023 at 3:45 pm per "The Curious Case of Gnostic Informant: Reaction vs. Research". Richard Carrier Blogs. 22 November 2022
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:02 amPeter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:47 am 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.
[First] God is said to be the supreme genus and His logos the second one. . . . Philo specifies that [First] God’s logos is the supreme genus of everything that was born. From a philosophical point of view, if somebody remains in the world of immanence, he can refer to the universal logos, and only to him [as a mediator/advocate for humans to First-god]. But to see the logos as the ultimate expression of the absolute is for Philo an absolute impiety. In fact, the logos is only God’s shadow, His image, the instrument by which He created the world, or in a more anthropomorphic way, His “first-born son” or His deputy (Agr. 51). In Fug. 109, the logos is said to be “the Son of God and Sophia”. The Pythagorean-Platonic model of Creation acting on undefined matter is thus both preserved and richly transformed.
--Lévy, Carlos (2022). "Philo of Alexandria". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Exodus 14:19. The angel of God leads the camp of Israel [out of Egypt]
[...]
The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (1st century AD) identified the angel of the Lord (singular) with Logos.
[...]
Susan Garrett says,Some [Jews during the time of Jesus and shortly before] understood the angel of the Lord as a being completely separate from God—a sort of angelic vizier or righthand angel, who served as head of the heavenly host and... as a mediator between God and humans... [Apart] from Christianity there was talk among ancient Jews of God’s word, God’s glory, and so forth in terms highly reminiscent of the angel of the Lord. So, when early Christian authors like Justin Martyr connected Jesus with God’s word and that word, in turn, with the angel of the Lord, they were not inventing from scratch...
Garrett, Susan R. (2008). No Ordinary Angel: Celestial Spirits and Christian Claims about Jesus. Yale University Press. pp. 27. ISBN 978-0-300-14095-8.
--"Angel of the Lord". Wikipedia.