For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

[Peter Kirby]

Here is the Loeb translation:

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."

The Loeb translation also makes it even more obvious how "Philonic" John 1:1-18 really is.

1 In the beginning (ἀρχῇ) was the Word (Λόγος), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind (ἀνθρώπων).

...

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
...

16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God (Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε), but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 1:1-18 hits upon the terms ἀρχῇ, Λόγος, ἀνθρώπων, and that he is the one who has seen God. Philo also uses this term the "Son of God."

There's plenty of grist for the mill here -- but one thing not found in Philo is the idea that Philo's Logos is called Jesus.

[Blood]

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.

The "not yet" is quite interesting in that passage.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

The "not yet" is quite interesting in that passage.

The context makes it more clear (...perhaps, less interesting?...).

but they who have real knowledge, are properly addressed as the sons of the one God, as Moses also entitles them, where he says, "Ye are the sons of the Lord God."{41}{#de 14:1.} And again, "God who begot Thee;"{42}{#de 32:18.} and in another place, "Is not he thy father?" Accordingly, it is natural for those who have this disposition of soul to look upon nothing as beautiful except what is good, which is the citadel erected by those who are experienced in this kind of warfare as a defence against the end of pleasure, and as a means of defeating and destroying it. (146) 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. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons."{43}{#ge 42:11.} For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word. (148) And, indeed, in many passages of the law, the children of Israel are called hearers of him that seeth, since hearing is honoured with the second rank next after the sense of sight, and since that which is in need of instruction is at all times second to that which can receive clear impressions of the subjects submitted to it without any such information.

The Loeb translation is not as misleading ("But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God..."):

But they who 145 live in the knowledge of the One are rightly called " Sons of God," as Moses also acknowledges when he says, •-•-Ye are sons of the Lord God " (Deut. xiv. 1), and " God who begat thee " (ibid, xxxii. 18), and " Is not He Himself thy father ? " (ibid. 6). Indeed with those whose soul is thus disposed it follows that they hold moral beauty to be the only good, and this serves as a counterwork engineered by veteran warriors to fight the cause which makes Pleasure the end and to subvert and overthrow it.a But if there 146 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. And 147 therefore I was moved a few pages above a to praise the virtues of those who say that " We are all sons of one man " (Gen. xlii. 11). For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of His invisible image, the most holy Word. For the Word is the eldest-born image of God. And 148 often indeed in the law-book we find another phrase, " sons of Israel," hearers, that is, sons of him that sees, since hearing stands second in estimation and below sight, and the recipient of teaching is always second to him with whom realities present their forms clear to his vision and not through the medium of instruction.

The context also shows the significance of the identity of the Logos as "Israel" for Philo.

[Giuseppe]

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

Is it only a coincidence that the High Priest Joshua son of Josedec represents all Israel, when someone hails mr. x by the title 'Anatole' ?

[Secret Alias]

You know Giuseppe you remind me of a mouse trying to get out of a box. At some point you're going to have to admit that there is nothing in Philo which suggests what you want to be true. Maybe there is some other avenue that you can prove that this 'Jesus angel' existed. But it ain't going to be from Philo.

[Peter Kirby]

What isn't a coincidence: anytime Giuseppe uses the word "coincidence," what follows will not be very logical.

[Secret Alias]

Carrier's logic that if you can 'see something' might be true in Zechariah (i.e. Joshua getting crowned) that you can just assume it 'must have been known' to Philo is simply moronic. Joshua as the tsemach 'might be true' from certain forced readings of the Hebrew (but notice the Jews using the Hebrew text never read it as if Joshua was the tsemach) but Philo used a translation of the text that doesn't allow for this interpretation. Moreover the prophetic writings and other writings besides the Pentateuch are very infrequent in Philo. He was very much connected with the Samaritan concept that these writings were secondary. Do you get that? It is virtually impossible to read LXX Zechariah as if Jesus was the anatole and Philo used LXX Zechariah AND Philo didn't develop core concepts from the minor writings like Zechariah. This is a later Jewish practice after they became alienated from the original emphasis on the Pentateuch. Let me repeat - Philo like the Samaritans placed his main focus on the Pentateuch. It is simply unlikely - even impossible - that what you 'sense' is true i.e. that Philo developed a doctrine wholly from a minor text which in its Greek translation makes what you want to happen impossible. Give it up.

[Secret Alias]

If you want to make this nonsense true the only avenue available to you is to assume that the idea that Joshua was the tsemach developed FIRST among groups that used the Hebrew text and that early Christianity developed a 'myth' from this tradition. The problem here again is that Jews don't read Zechariah as if Joshua was the anatole. But still it is the only avenue available to you.

[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.

[maryhelena]

Carrier has a new blog post up which might throw some light on his thinking on the issue in the OP.

• Everything You Need to Know about Coincidences
  
  http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9265
  
  Although, sometimes, coincidences are just as likely as causation, or near enough as to make no visible difference in our math, or even more likely the case. And thus we can’t rule them out. But sometimes we actually can. So you have to know when is which. Like when we look for evidence of meaningful literary emulation in ancient texts (Proving History, pp. 192-204). Or when some hucksters tried to claim we found the tomb of Jesus. Or when we look for evidence that the Jewish scholar Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same archangel Paul thinks his Jesus is, by noting that the alternative explanation requires so many coincidences to have occurred as to be extraordinarily improbable (On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 200-05), including the fact that Paul and Philo assign all the same unusual attributes to the same figure, and the fact that Philo said he made the connection because the archangel in question was already known to him as the Son of God and the High Priest, and the only person in Zechariah passage he quotes who is identified as the Son of God and the High Priest, is Jesus.