to Ben,
Thanks for the additional examples appearing in Philo's works.
However, these quotes do not prove anything, more so that Philo was alluding to Zechariah in 6:12.
First I agree Philo considered a psalmist as being also a prophet sometimes ('On Husbandry', 'Who Is the Heir of Divine Things') but not all the times ('On Dreams', 'On the Confusion of Tongues').
But that comment is not relevant because Zechariah is not a psalmist.
Almost every time Philo brings the expression companions/friend/kinsman/followers/disciples of Moses, he also specified the quote is from a psalmist (also prophet or not),or/and from a psalm or hymn, or a prophet.
But there are 3 exceptions:
1) 'On Mating': But Philo quoted a proverb, whose author is anonymous (so, understandably, no further identification of the author). Anyway here we are not dealing with a prophetic saying, showing that disciple of Moses is not necessarily a prophet.
2) 'On the Unchangeableness of God'. Well, those
companions of Moses are not specified to be prophets (they could be just proto-Jews) and Joseph is accused not to have listened to their discourse and opinions. Here we are: These "companions of Moses" are not necessarily writers also but most likely meant to be contemporaries of Joseph (but not listened by that Joseph).
3) 'On the Confusion of Tongues': Same as for 2). This one of the "
companions of Moses" was heard by Philo uttering (speaking) a particular saying. That can only mean that saying was known verbally then by Philo. If Philo read it from Zecariah, he would not have used the same words, but given some further indication (such as "prophet", "Zechariah"), as he did for the psalms and prophetic writings he quoted.
Philo certainly did not say it was not novel for his incorporeal being. He acknowledged he is the one applying that appellation to the heavenly entity, without saying it was done before by others.
It is as if you are not even reading the sentence. The name East is novel if it is applied to an ordinary human, but if it is applied to an incorporeal being it is fitting. Which "if" holds true for Philo?
"It is fitting" does not mean it is not a novel appellation regarding Philo's incorporeal being. I do not see any relationship here.
"novel appellation"? Yes, as far as I know, nowhere in the Jewish scriptures the appellation "Rises" has been applied to a heavenly Deity.
One does not just read the scriptures; one hears them:
Matthew 5.21a: "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' (= Deuteronomy 5.17)...."
Luke 16.29: "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'"
In these days, most people were illiterate and therefore any religious education had to be verbal/oral. So the 'heard" and 'hear".
But Philo was not illiterate. He did not have to learn about the saying by hearing it as showing in the book of 'Zechariah'. Actually, the way he presented the saying shows he was ignorant (or faked ignorance) of its ultimate origin. Likely Philo read 'Zachariah', even several times. But by the time he wrote 'On the Confusion of Tongues', it is highly possible he forgot about most of its content. We cannot expect Philo to remember every lines of the Jewish scriptures, more so because he did not seem to be too interested about the prophetic writings.
Ted is right. Philo quotes one passage from Zechariah, and then he quotes another passage from elsewhere (ἑτέρωθι).
Philo did not give any indication he quoted one passage from Zechariah. Instead he gave several indications he got that "very novel appellation" from a contemporary Jew, verbally.
Cordially, Bernard