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

[Giuseppe]

mmm... I find a new feature in Carrier's argument.

He thinks that the coincidences (etc) are so improbable that Philo did an eccentric reading of Zech 6:12 only in order to claim for himself (or rather for his Logos) a name of an archangel that he obviously could not but know: Jesus.


As if I read about Donald Trump in the newspapers and I wonder if that Donald Trump is nothing more than Silvio Berlusconi. Of course in reality Donald Trump is not Silvio Berlusconi, but in my mind Donald Trump is Silvio Berlusconi in giant format.

Wel: in this sense Carrier can be right.

[Peter Kirby]

Carrier seems to have missed a great opportunity here to point out that rejection of the null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct. If the null hypothesis is "coincidence" (no relationship among the variables whatsoever), rejection of that null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct.

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.

Accordingly, the contents of the works of Philo and the letters of Paul are not completely unrelated and random. The null hypothesis that they could have been generated at random and without any connection of one to the other is falsified (or, at least, this much can be allowed, even if no math has been done here). Bravo.

But nobody actually believed that they were. When Carrier refers to:

the fact that Paul and Philo assign all the same unusual attributes to the same figure

Pretty much anyone (other than some hardcore conservative Christians, perhaps) would already be fully aware that Paul and Philo are both first century Jews and are both drawing on a rich tradition of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish thought around the turn of the era. Certainly that isn't random! Certainly that isn't unconnected. Both authors held beliefs about an intermediary figure, whatever it is named. Both were informed by a shared cultural and religious background.

Carrier's argument (apparently) for his particular belief here is this (from the quote above):

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.

The premises and conclusion:

1) Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest.
2) The Zechariah 6 passage quoted identifies Jesus as the Son of God and the High Priest.
3) Therefore, Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same as the archangel Logos.

Regarding the first premise:

Does Philo say why he identifies the figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos? And, if so, what is the reason given? Here is the passage.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html

But those who conspired to commit injustice, he says, "having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There;"{16}{#ge 11:2.} speaking most strictly in accordance with nature. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth. (61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: "And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,"{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable.

(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

This premise is simply incorrect. If you look at the passage itself, you could easily find out why Philo says that he identified this figure as being the same as the Logos (if anything is said by Philo in this regard). Again:

A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

Philo says that the name "East" (or "Rising") is inappropriate for a man, made of both body and soul, and appropriate for an incorporeal being, such as the Logos is. That's what Philo says in this quote from Zechariah 6:12.

Nothing like Carrier's "Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest" is actually said by Philo. Either you might argue that Philo doesn't give his reasons for making the identification explicitly in his text, or you'd have to argue that the reasons given are not those that Carrier describes. Either way, the premise is wrong.

Regarding the second premise:

Joshua son of Jozadak is the high priest at the time. He is not exactly "the" High Priest (so much as one in a long line of high priests on earth) and not "the Son of God." The equivalence drawn with the attributes of the Logos is false.

Regarding the conclusion:

Not only are the premises false, but the conclusion also plainly contradicts what Philo says.

"...Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same archangel..."

Jesus in Zechariah 6 is "a man who is compounded of body and soul," while the archangel is not. By Philo's own reasoning for identifying "East" as referring to the intermediary archangel that is the Logos, the Logos is also not Jesus.

This makes sense, of course, because the text of Zechariah itself also does not identify the high priest Joshua with the expected future messianic figure of 'the man named Branch' (Hebrew) / 'East' (Septuagint).

Neither Philo nor the author of Zechariah makes the identification that Carrier does.

[Secret Alias]

Very well done. You are obviously a mathematician and math is the queen of the sciences.

[Giuseppe]

Peter, you recognize that Philo quoted:

ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος (Behold the man!)

and not ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ

therefore can this be evidence that the Septuagint Zech 6:12 read by Philo had likely ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος? And if your answer is yes, can this be testual evidence that the reading of Zech 6:12 with ἄνθρωπος alludes to a being human (in opposition to a celestial figure), therefore to Jesus son of Josedec (and not simply to a generic unspecified man) ?

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, you recognize that Philo quoted:

ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος (Behold the man!)

and not ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ

therefore can this be evidence that the Septuagint Zech 6:12 read by Philo had likely ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος? And if your answer is yes, can this be testual evidence that the reading of Zech 6:12 with ἄνθρωπος alludes to a being human (in opposition to a celestial figure), therefore to Jesus son of Josedec (and not simply to a generic unspecified man) ?

No to the first question. Ancient authors quoted from memory and could inadvertently alter the wording.

Also, no to the other question too. I'm not even sure why you would suggest that such wording would mean that.

[Giuseppe]

If I understand you well, you are saying that this claim:

6:12 and say to him this, “The Lord Creator says, ‘Behold the man: the name for him [is] Anatole, and he will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord

can only be reduced to:

6:12 and say to Joshua son of Josedec this, “The Lord Creator says, ‘Behold the man: the name for him [is] Anatole, and he will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord

where the second ''for him'' (in blue) doesn't refer to the first ''for him'' (in red).

But do you deny a priori the same possibility of the second ''for him'' being really a reference to the same Joshua son of Josedec (that meant by the first ''for him'') ?
Are you saying that only Christians can see it as a possibility,''therefore'' a probability?


Carrier reads Zech 6.12 so:

6:12 and say to Joshua son of Josedec this, “The Lord Creator says, ‘Behold the man: the name for Joshua son of Josedec [is] Anatole, and Joshua son of Josedec will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord.

[Giuseppe]

What do you think about a talmudist author that did read the Branch in another passage of Zech (not Zech 6:12) as an allusion to the suffering Messiah bar Joseph ?

If the Branch is always the same entity in Zech (therefore in Zech 6:12, too) do you think that that talmudist did preserve an older (pre-Philo) reading of Zech that argues:


1) the Branch in Zech is Messiah ben Joseph
2) the Messia ben Joseph is Joshua son of Josedec
3) therefore: the Branch is Joshua son of Josedec

[MrMacSon]

Carrier seems to have missed a great opportunity here to point out that rejection of the null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct. If the null hypothesis is "coincidence" (no relationship among the variables whatsoever), rejection of that null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct.

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.

Accordingly, the contents of the works of Philo and the letters of Paul are not completely unrelated and random. The null hypothesis that they could have been generated at random and without any connection of one to the other is falsified (or, at least, this much can be allowed, even if no math has been done here). Bravo.

But nobody actually believed that they were. When Carrier refers to:

the fact that Paul and Philo assign all the same unusual attributes to the same figure

Pretty much anyone (other than some hardcore conservative Christians, perhaps) would already be fully aware that Paul and Philo are both first century Jews and are both drawing on a rich tradition of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish thought around the turn of the era. Certainly that isn't random! Certainly that isn't unconnected. Both authors held beliefs about an intermediary figure, whatever it is named. Both were informed by a shared cultural and religious background.

Carrier's argument (apparently) for his particular belief here is this (from the quote above):

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.

The premises and conclusion:

1) Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest.
2) The Zechariah 6 passage quoted identifies Jesus as the Son of God and the High Priest.
3) Therefore, Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same as the archangel Logos.

Regarding the first premise:

Does Philo say why he identifies the figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos? And, if so, what is the reason given? Here is the passage.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html

But those who conspired to commit injustice, he says, "having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There;"{16}{#ge 11:2.} speaking most strictly in accordance with nature. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth. (61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: "And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,"{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable.

(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

This premise is simply incorrect. If you look at the passage itself, you could easily find out why Philo says that he identified this figure as being the same as the Logos (if anything is said by Philo in this regard). Again:

A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

Philo says that the name "East" (or "Rising") is inappropriate for a man, made of both body and soul, and appropriate for an incorporeal being, such as the Logos is. That's what Philo says in this quote from Zechariah 6:12.

Nothing like Carrier's "Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest" is actually said by Philo. Either you might argue that Philo doesn't give his reasons for making the identification explicitly in his text, or you'd have to argue that the reasons given are not those that Carrier describes. Either way, the premise is wrong.

Regarding the second premise:

Joshua son of Jozadak is the high priest at the time. He is not exactly "the" High Priest (so much as one in a long line of high priests on earth) and not "the Son of God." The equivalence drawn with the attributes of the Logos is false.

Regarding the conclusion:

Not only are the premises false, but the conclusion also plainly contradicts what Philo says.

"...Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same archangel..."

Jesus in Zechariah 6 is "a man who is compounded of body and soul," while the archangel is not. By Philo's own reasoning for identifying "East" as referring to the intermediary archangel that is the Logos, the Logos is also not Jesus.

This makes sense, of course, because the text of Zechariah itself also does not identify the high priest Joshua with the expected future messianic figure of 'the man named Branch' (Hebrew) / 'East' (Septuagint).

Neither Philo nor the author of Zechariah makes the identification that Carrier does.

I think Peter has mangled a number of concepts here -

• application of the null hypothesis in general
  application of Peter's version of a nebulous concept of the null hypothesis to Peter's nebulous premises
  'falsification' of a nebulous null hypothesis
  misrepresentation of Carrier's argument
  misrepresentation of Philo's philosophizing
  & others

To me, the key parts of this passage that Kirby focuses on -

• "A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity."

are

• " ..if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image.."

and

• "... the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity"

Furthermore, the key parts of those excerpts are

• " ...that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image --
  
  • ie. made in the image of God
  and
  • " ...the name of *the east* ---"
    
    -- given to him with great felicity"
  I think these aspects of Philo-speak are highly significant ....so ... There is more to yet tease out there.
  
  
  
  Regarding Peter Kirby puttiing words in Carrier and Philo's mouths -
  

  The [Kirby versions of the so-called] premises and conclusion:
  
  1) Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest.
  2) The Zechariah 6 passage quoted identifies [a] Jesus as [potentially] the Son of God and the High Priest.
  3) Therefore, Philo understood considered a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same as the archangel Logos.

  ie. one cannot be black or white about Zech 6 or Philo's contemplations of it.
  
  One can only ascribe perceptions about those perceptions. Carrier has and is doing that.
  
  Another example of my point about things not being black or white - ie. being grey - is this

  Regarding the second premise:
  
  Joshua son of Jozadak is the high priest at the time.

  At what time?????
  
  Zechariah 6 is set several centuries before-hand.
  
  Is "that time"
  
  • a. then ??
    
    b. Philo's time ??
    
    c. a time yet to come ??

There is more to yet tease out here.

[MrMacSon]

Carrier seems to have missed a great opportunity here to point out that rejection of the null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct. If the null hypothesis is "coincidence" (no relationship among the variables whatsoever), rejection of that null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct.

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.

Accordingly, the contents of the works of Philo and the letters of Paul are not completely unrelated and random. The null hypothesis that they could have been generated at random and without any connection of one to the other is falsified (or, at least, this much can be allowed, even if no math has been done here). Bravo.

But nobody actually believed that they were.

Carrier doe not refer to the null hypothesis there.

It is unreasonable for you to ascribe a nebulous concept of the null hypothesis to his comments.

or the Philo's comments.

What does "without any connection of one to the other is falsified " actually mean?

[Peter Kirby]

If I understand you well, you are saying that this claim:

6:12 and say to him this, “The Lord Creator says, ‘Behold the man: the name for him [is] Anatole, and he will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord

can only be reduced to:

6:12 and say to Joshua son of Josedec this, “The Lord Creator says, ‘Behold the man: the name for him [is] Anatole, and he will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord

where the second ''for him'' (in blue) doesn't refer to the first ''for him'' (in red).

But do you deny a priori the same possibility of the second ''for him'' being really a reference to the same Joshua son of Josedec (that meant by the first ''for him'') ?
Are you saying that only Christians can see it as a possibility,''therefore'' a probability?


Carrier reads Zech 6.12 so:

6:12 and say to Joshua son of Josedec this, “The Lord Creator says, ‘Behold the man: the name for Joshua son of Josedec [is] Anatole, and Joshua son of Josedec will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord.

What do you think about a talmudist author that did read the Branch in another passage of Zech (not Zech 6:12) as an allusion to the suffering Messiah bar Joseph ?

If the Branch is always the same entity in Zech (therefore in Zech 6:12, too) do you think that that talmudist did preserve an older (pre-Philo) reading of Zech that argues:


1) the Branch in Zech is Messiah ben Joseph
2) the Messia ben Joseph is Joshua son of Josedec
3) therefore: the Branch is Joshua son of Josedec

Carrier seems to have missed a great opportunity here to point out that rejection of the null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct. If the null hypothesis is "coincidence" (no relationship among the variables whatsoever), rejection of that null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct.

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.

Accordingly, the contents of the works of Philo and the letters of Paul are not completely unrelated and random. The null hypothesis that they could have been generated at random and without any connection of one to the other is falsified (or, at least, this much can be allowed, even if no math has been done here). Bravo.

But nobody actually believed that they were. When Carrier refers to:

the fact that Paul and Philo assign all the same unusual attributes to the same figure

Pretty much anyone (other than some hardcore conservative Christians, perhaps) would already be fully aware that Paul and Philo are both first century Jews and are both drawing on a rich tradition of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish thought around the turn of the era. Certainly that isn't random! Certainly that isn't unconnected. Both authors held beliefs about an intermediary figure, whatever it is named. Both were informed by a shared cultural and religious background.

Carrier's argument (apparently) for his particular belief here is this (from the quote above):

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.

The premises and conclusion:

1) Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest.
2) The Zechariah 6 passage quoted identifies Jesus as the Son of God and the High Priest.
3) Therefore, Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same as the archangel Logos.

Regarding the first premise:

Does Philo say why he identifies the figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos? And, if so, what is the reason given? Here is the passage.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html

But those who conspired to commit injustice, he says, "having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There;"{16}{#ge 11:2.} speaking most strictly in accordance with nature. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth. (61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: "And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,"{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable.

(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

This premise is simply incorrect. If you look at the passage itself, you could easily find out why Philo says that he identified this figure as being the same as the Logos (if anything is said by Philo in this regard). Again:

A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

Philo says that the name "East" (or "Rising") is inappropriate for a man, made of both body and soul, and appropriate for an incorporeal being, such as the Logos is. That's what Philo says in this quote from Zechariah 6:12.

Nothing like Carrier's "Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest" is actually said by Philo. Either you might argue that Philo doesn't give his reasons for making the identification explicitly in his text, or you'd have to argue that the reasons given are not those that Carrier describes. Either way, the premise is wrong.

Regarding the second premise:

Joshua son of Jozadak is the high priest at the time. He is not exactly "the" High Priest (so much as one in a long line of high priests on earth) and not "the Son of God." The equivalence drawn with the attributes of the Logos is false.

Regarding the conclusion:

Not only are the premises false, but the conclusion also plainly contradicts what Philo says.

"...Philo understood a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same archangel..."

Jesus in Zechariah 6 is "a man who is compounded of body and soul," while the archangel is not. By Philo's own reasoning for identifying "East" as referring to the intermediary archangel that is the Logos, the Logos is also not Jesus.

This makes sense, of course, because the text of Zechariah itself also does not identify the high priest Joshua with the expected future messianic figure of 'the man named Branch' (Hebrew) / 'East' (Septuagint).

Neither Philo nor the author of Zechariah makes the identification that Carrier does.

I think Peter has mangled a number of concepts here -

• application of the null hypothesis in general
  application of Peter's version of a nebulous concept of the null hypothesis to Peter's nebulous premises
  'falsification' of a nebulous null hypothesis
  misrepresentation of Carrier's argument
  misrepresentation of Philo's philosophizing
  & others

To me, the key parts of this passage that Kirby focuses on -

• "A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity."

are

• " ..if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image.."

and

• "... the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity"

Furthermore, the key parts of those excerpts are

• " ...that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image --
  
  • ie. made in the image of God
  and
  • " ...the name of *the east* ---"
    
    -- given to him with great felicity"
  I think these aspects of Philo-speak are highly significant ....so ... There is more to yet tease out there.
  
  
  
  Regarding Peter Kirby puttiing words in Carrier and Philo's mouths -
  

  The [Kirby versions of the so-called] premises and conclusion:
  
  1) Philo said that he identified a figure in Zechariah 6 as the archangel Logos because the Logos was the Son of God and the High Priest.
  2) The Zechariah 6 passage quoted identifies [a] Jesus as [potentially] the Son of God and the High Priest.
  3) Therefore, Philo understood considered a character named Jesus in Zechariah 6 to be the same as the archangel Logos.

  ie. one cannot be black or white about Zech 6 or Philo's contemplations of it.
  
  One can only ascribe perceptions about those perceptions. Carrier has and is doing that.
  
  Another example of my point about things not being black or white - ie. being grey - is this

  Regarding the second premise:
  
  Joshua son of Jozadak is the high priest at the time.

  At what time?????
  
  Zechariah 6 is set several centuries before-hand.
  
  Is "that time"
  
  • a. then ??
    
    b. Philo's time ??
    
    c. a time yet to come ??

There is more to yet tease out here.

Carrier seems to have missed a great opportunity here to point out that rejection of the null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct. If the null hypothesis is "coincidence" (no relationship among the variables whatsoever), rejection of that null hypothesis does not tell you what explanation is correct.

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.

Accordingly, the contents of the works of Philo and the letters of Paul are not completely unrelated and random. The null hypothesis that they could have been generated at random and without any connection of one to the other is falsified (or, at least, this much can be allowed, even if no math has been done here). Bravo.

But nobody actually believed that they were.

Carrier doe not refer to the null hypothesis there.

It is unreasonable for you to ascribe a nebulous concept of the null hypothesis to his comments.

or the Philo's comments.

What does "without any connection of one to the other is falsified " actually mean?

I'm not interested in this scholastic approach to defending Carrier's every word as if it wafted down from on high. Many of these comments are downright silly, to put it kindly.

Either Carrier makes a good argument, or he does not.

If there's something to be learned here from Carrier and his admirers, share it with us.