Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote: I'm not interested in this scholastic approach to defending Carrier's every word as if it wafted down from on high.

I'm not trying to defend Carrier's every word.

I don't think Carrier's wordz "wafted down from on high".

But you do seem interested in a scholastic approach. I would like to address this -

Mr Macson wrote:
To me, the key parts of [the Philo passage] that Peter Kirby focuses on -

• (62) "... 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."
  
  http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html

are

• " ..if you look upon it [ie. "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"] 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.

felicity -

1.intense happiness.
"domestic felicity"
synonyms: happiness, joy, joyfulness, joyousness, rapture, bliss, euphoria, delight, cheer, cheerfulness, gaiety; ...

2.the ability to find appropriate expression for one's thoughts.
"he exposed the kernel of the matter with his customary elegance and felicity"
synonyms: eloquence, aptness, appropriateness, suitability, suitableness, applicability, fitness, relevance, pertinence, correctness, rightness
"David expressed his feelings with his customary felicity"

Peter Kirby wrote: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.

We are 'sharing it', as in discussing it.

Regarding -

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

That should be -

• "What does
  
  • 'The null hypothesis that [the works of Philo and the letters of Paul] could have been generated at random and without any connection of one to the other is falsified'

actually mean?"

I think Carrier is being very narrow-minded in strongly connecting the works of Philo and the letters of Paul as being the works of contemporaries - there is still a need for a lot of scholarship to determine when the letters of Paul were actually written and in what context.

• (the letters of Paul many not have been finalized in Philo's time)

.

So the idea that Philo and Paul might have been contemporaries IS A WEAKER ARGUMENT in your mind than the claim that we can by pass Philo's complete silence about this fucking 'Jesus angel' and now know that Philo really believed in Jesus by reading Carrier's esoteric rendering of the Greek text of Zechariah which differs night and day from every other English rendering? Really? So the shitty translation is fine, the shitty analysis is fine but 'not so sure' about Philo and Paul being contemporaries Is this what I am being told? My Lord! Let me ask again. Am I understanding where exactly 'you will give into' Carrier's critics that he might have gone a little 'out there' with his theory? Well that's so generous of you. He might be wrong about saying that Philo and Paul were contemporaries! Wow! That's an important concession

Carrier referred to:

Richard Carrier wrote:the fact that Paul and Philo assign all the same unusual attributes to the same figure

I am okay with reverting to the language that Carrier uses -- "coincidences" -- especially if my post is going to be maligned indiscriminately. I understand that Carrier did not use the language of statistics. Some would understand immediately the connection of statistics to the concepts that Carrier does name, or at least the way in which they may be considered related... but if that is not understood, I will attempt to spare myself the reproach regarding "putting words" in his mouth.

The point here is that there are many possible explanations of the raw "fact" that Paul and Philo have much in common.

One of those possible explanations is the one that Carrier favors, but others are possible as well.

The 'coincidences' themselves do not allow us to adjudicate as to which explanation is correct.

And, naturally, everyone who is interested in this subject does not believe that there is no explanation needed at all for such 'coincidences'. Everyone concerned actually does believe that there is a relationship between the beliefs of Paul and the beliefs of Philo, on account of both of them being Jews of the first century influenced by a Hellenistic environment, for one thing.

MrMacSon wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote: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.

We are 'sharing it', as in discussing it.

While we are sharing...

Does Carrier make a good argument for believing that Philo identified the Logos with "Jesus"? What do you think?

Peter Kirby wrote: Does Carrier make a good argument for believing that Philo identified the Logos with "Jesus"? What do you think?

Given the vagaries of Zech 6 (and consideration of other aspects of the book of Zechariah, particularly Zech 3), and the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing, I think Carrier has made a reasonable inductive argument. I'm not sure Carrier's argument can be described as cogent.

I think there is more discussion to be had about the relevant passages in Philo's works.

Hey MrMacSon. Maybe after criticizing his 'questionable dating of Philo and Paul as contemporaries' you can move on to other hard hitting criticisms of his work like his improper use of semi-colons.

I think there is more discussion to be had about the relevant passages in Philo's works.

Wow that's a controversial statement. Conversations like books are without end as the scripture says. Too bad for you and your gang of three people all the conversations are going to come up with no references to this Jesus angel.

MrMacSon wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote: Does Carrier make a good argument for believing that Philo identified the Logos with "Jesus"? What do you think?

Given the vagaries of Zech 6 (and consideration of other aspects of the book of Zechariah, particularly Zech 3), and the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing, I think Carrier has made a reasonable inductive argument. I'm not sure Carrier's argument can be described as cogent.

Okay. And what is Carrier's "reasonable inductive argument" (according to your understanding)?

Peter Kirby wrote: Carrier referred to:

Richard Carrier wrote: the fact that Paul and Philo assign all the same unusual attributes to the same figure

I am okay with reverting to the language that Carrier uses -- "coincidences" ...

The point here is that there are many possible explanations of the raw "fact" that Paul and Philo have much in common.

Yes, aspects of the works of Paul & Philo do have much in common, and yes there are many possible explanations.