Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote:

it is not possible or at least there is no reason to think that Philo would have gone against the plain meaning of the

But what is the 'plain meaning of the quote' ?

Good question!

Giuseppe wrote:If you are Philo, how do you allegorize in your theology the high priest Joshua 'son of Jeova the Right' having already assumed that the man hailed Ἀνατολὴ is the High Priest and the Son of God ?

If you deny that Philo allegorizes along the lines 'high priest'/'son of Jeova', what do you do about the coincidence that Joshua is possibly just the candidate man hailed Ἀνατολὴ ?

Good question!

Giuseppe wrote: If you deny that Philo did read Joshua as the candidate man hailed Ἀνατολὴ, what do you do about the coincidence that Joshua was an high priest and 'son of Jeova the right' while the Logos was High Priest and the Son of God?

another Good Question!

Lemme re-do this for you -

Giuseppe wrote:You seem have very a lot of coincidences to exorcize far, frankly.

You seem to have a lot of coincidences to exorcize so far, frankly.

If you can't come up with evidence that Philo knew about a 'Jesus angel' you should recognize in your own mind that this is an assertion rather than a thesis.

But what is the 'plain meaning of the quote' ?

The plain meaning of the passage develops from the standard (Bretton) translation of LXX Zechariah and has to do with a human high priest named Jesus who lived long before Christianity. Come on this isn't difficult.

Philo's is an esoteric interpretation of Zechariah. Hence Carrier's appeal to the exoteric reading of Zechariah is misleading.

Carrier in fact develops his own esoteric reading of Zechariah and then repackages it (falsely) as an exoteric reading so as to make it seem to his readers that it is the only interpretation Philo could have had. But the reality is that there is no limit to the manner in which one can develop an allegorical reading of a given text.

The more credible approach (if Carrier really wanted to 'discover' Philo's interpretation of Zechariah) would have been to stick to what Philo actually says about the text.

Or other things that Philo says about this heavenly 'man of God' who is the Logos etc.

But unfortunately you don't develop a weapon against the historical Jesus by abiding by proper methodologies used in the humanities.

If you can't come up with evidence that Philo knew about a 'Jesus angel' you should recognize in your own mind that this is an assertion rather than a thesis.

I can't come up with evidence that Phllo knew about a 'Melchizedek archangel' yet that archangel named Melchizedek was adored at Qumran and probably Philo knew it. Your (weak) Argument from Silence doesn't work here, sorry.

The problem is reduced to know how the talmudist Jews did read Zech 6:12.

Secret Alias is an expert of Talmud, I presume.

What does he think about talmudists quoting Zech 6:12 ?

Secret Alias wrote:

Carrier has done more than make an assertion.

So what is the evidence in your mind that Philo knew about this 'Jesus angel'? I've asked for this a hundred times now. Just jot it out in bullet form. What is the direct evidence that Philo knew about a Jesus angel? ...

Earlier in the forum, I posted excerpts from several chapters of Zechariah as evidence Zechariah was a series of visions/dreams about angels ...

I made the point that

• all of these crappy texts are about angels, Lords (who are really angels), and the odd angel reciting a 'Lord Almighty'

>> Jeshua son of Josedek is being portrayed as a supernatural character in Zech 3 and Zech 6, as are most characters in these texts.

It is waffle about waffle.