Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus angel

[Secret Alias]

Any going beyond anthropos as the name of the angel when trying to understand Philo abandons any sincerity in trying to understand what Philo actually believed or what Philo was originally saying. Philo was not saying nor did he believe that 'Jesus' was the name of his anthropos-Logos being.

[MrMacSon]

https://books.google.com/books?id=5-ntA ... xx&f=false

pp.27-8 -

Testament of Judah 24, therefore, fits the Branch, man, and sceptre into its mosaic of eschatological expectations based on Num 24:17, and seems to fuse their characteristics together.62.

In Philo there is further evidence that the Balaam oracles and Zech 6:12 have been read together. These key passages are located in Philo's On the Life of Moses and the Exposition of the Law[super]63[/super].

[MrMacSon]

And what's your point?

p 35 of The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew by Charlene McAfee Moss

Philo-Balaam branch man sceptre.JPG (61.35 KiB) Viewed 5519 times

from p.31 -

In recognition that Philo invested the names of Biblical characters with great symbolic meaning, Philo made this text emphasize Balaam's sight of God, to the exclusion of other ways of 'knowing'. The result of casting the Gentile prophet as one who saw God clearly is Philo's identification of Balaam with Jacob, who was renamed Israel, the one who sees God.70

70 Hayward "Balaam's Prophecies" ... on Philo's etymologies of Hebrew names ... Hayward contends that Philo's knowledge of early Targumic traditions about "hidden mysteries", which were taken from Jacob-Israel and which were revealed to Balaam, is behind Philo's understanding of the biblical text.

[Secret Alias]

I still don't understand your point. No one is disputing that Philo viewed the anatole as "messianic" in some celestial manner. The standard way of understanding that figure is to connect it with the cosmic "man" connected with the anatole in Genesis chapter 1. What does any of this have to do with his being understood to be "Jesus" by Philo?

[Secret Alias]

Here is the right answer with regards to the identify of Philo's angel - it is the acknowledged truth about what Philo is saying with respect to Zech 6.12:

[Philo] calls the Logos God's first-born, the oldest and ruler of the angels, i.e. the archangel, and furthermore the Beginning, the Name of God, Man after God's image, and Israel; he explains this name as 'he who sees God'.40 The term 'God's first-born' is derived from Exodus 4:22 where the Lord commands Moses to tell the Egyptian Pharaoh, 'Israel is my first-born.'41 The 'Name of God' indicates the name Yahweh, i.e. the Lord. The title 'Man after God's image' refers to Genesis 1:26–27 which states that God created man after his image; it proves that the Logos, according to Philo, is the archetype of
The designation 'he who sees God' is derived from Genesis 32:30, where Jacob after his wrestling with the unknown man was given the name Israel and says, 'I have seen God.'42 Philo identifies this Logos and first-born son with the angel mankind created by God. The designation 'he who sees God' is derived from Genesis 32:30, where Jacob after his wrestling with the unknown man was given the name Israel and says, 'I have seen God.'42 Philo identifies this Logos and first-born son with the angel from Exodus 23:20, who will go in front of Israel and upon whom the Name of the Lord rests. This angel too is called Lord and is the ruler over all powers.“ Elsewhere, he identifies the Logos with God's Wisdom.44 For Philo the Logos is a 'second god', whom he designates without the definite article 'the' (ho), the ruler of everything, through whom everything exists.45 He is God for the people who are not perfect yet.46 As ruler over the angels, he is neither uncreated like the Creator, nor created like human beings, and therefore he is midway between God and human beings.47 He regularly appeared on earth to help people in need, like Hagar and Jacob.48 Without mentioning the title 'Logos', Philo refers to this figure in a passage about a man whose name is Anatole in Zechariah 6:12, which can be translated as 'dawn'.'' Philo sees in this the incorporeal figure who differs in nothing from the 'divine image' (Genesis 1:26-27). He calls him the eldest son whom God the Father has generated, and his first-born.50 [Roukema p. 153]

There is nothing in any of the things that Philo said or didn't say that can justify identifying 'Jesus' as the name of Philo's logos for Philo or his Alexandrian community. Clearly he is 'man' or if you prefer the original Hebrew designation of this angel - ish. This angel was known to Jews and Samaritans of every generation; the angel Joshua is has never been known to ANY generation of Jews or Samaritans. In fact its existence would be utterly surprising given the clear distinction between human names and divine names in the period. Indeed it would be especially hard to reconcile with Philo's Platonic tendencies saying as he does that everything referenced before Genesis 2:4 represents a description of the realm of ideas. The figure of the heavenly anthropos which appears before that point is clearly the archetype for material humanity. This supposed figure of an 'angel Jesus' would only be the archetype for people named Joshua and Philo would then have to imagine literally thousands of 'ideal' human-named angels existing in heaven, each as the doppelganger for every specific named individual on the earth. A complete joke which would make Philo a laughingstock in the philosophical circles he traveled. Indeed it would be impossible to imagine the human-named angel 'Joshua' would be identified with the logos because it would necessarily preclude every human-named angel having the same rights and privileges. You'd have an angel Bill and an angel Tom and an angel Ralph all wanting to be identified as the heavenly Logos - as many heavenly logoi as names of people on earth

The case is closed. There is no need for more discussion. The mythicists like Carrier are guilty of inventing a myth themselves in order to simplify their anti-Christian polemic in order to get as many unattractive 'polyamorous' souls into a hot tub (it would seem Giuseppe is missing out from the real purpose of Carrier's invented myth). They created a false narrative about Philo calling his angel 'Jesus' in order to simplifying the steps necessary to make the man from Nazareth an angel. Unfortunately by 'cheating' like this you compromise the authenticity of your entire message. The proper goal is not to win over losers to an anti-Christian doctrine but to seek after the truth. The truth is undoubtedly that Philo's angelic anthropos was undoubtedly known in Hebrew or Aramaic speaking circles as 'IS' and this Hebrew name was translated into the earliest manuscripts of Christianity as ΙΣ.

At some point we will all have to decide whether ΙΣ was originally read as a transliteration of the letters that appear on the page of an original Hebrew manuscript (= 'man') and thus a figure entirely in keeping with the traditional Jewish manner of reading the Bible or some 'secret code' used by only Christians where Ι and Σ were taken to be the first and last letters of a mortal man named Ι[ησοῦ]Σ. But you can't get from Philo's anthropos to an angelic Ἰησοῦς. That's the bottom line.

[MrMacSon]

Zech 6:12 (KJV) -

12 And speak unto him*, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man* whose name is 'The Branch'; and he* shall grow up out of his place, and he* shall build the temple of the Lord:

13 Even he* shall build the temple of the Lord; and he* shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his* throne; and he* shall be a priest upon his* throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

* from Zech 6:11-
11 ... Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

[Secret Alias]

I will simplify it again:

For Philo the heavenly logos was called 'man' THAT'S IT! He never makes the jump to this figure being Jesus and the LXX precludes that possibility because the anatole can't be read to be Jesus the high priest.

For Christians the figure identified by the nomen sacrum ΙΣ in their sacred writings is identified with the anatole in Zechariah 6:12. There is no question about it. But the earliest Christians never say that Zechariah identified Jesus the high priest as the anatole in his vision in chapter 6 (probably because the used the LXX). We have to be careful about crossing the line here too.

But the bottom line is still the same Carrier's claim that Philo identified his heavenly 'man' with the name Jesus is a misrepresentation of what Philo says and undoubtedly what Philo himself believed. That's the bottom line. It's bad scholarship and 'cheating' in every sense of the word. You can't say Philo understood 'Jesus' to be his heavenly man who is the anatole. Nor can you say that Justin read 'Jesus' in his edition of the Bible when he identifies the Christian god with the man who wrestled with Jacob or the man who was the anatole in Zechariah. There are obstacles to the complete identification of 'Jesus' as the heavenly man of the Jewish apocalyptic and mystical tradition. Those obstacles should not be removed. They are there for a reason - Jews never knew anything about an angel named Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

Zech 6:11-12 -

11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

12 And speak unto him [Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest], saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying,

• "Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord ..."

[Secret Alias]

I've provided the proper translation for these lines. What exactly are you meaning to do by merely cite a bad translation? Too stupid to actually try and make a meaningful point? At least you are showing more prudence than your Italian clown friend hiding behind King James.

[Secret Alias]

There is no definite article in the Hebrew - it is simply אִ֞ישׁ