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

[Secret Alias]

But. You. Have. Greek. Letters. Coming. Out. Of. Your. Keyboard. But. Claim. To. Be. Ignorant. Of. Greek.

Perplexing.

[outhouse]

The significance to this forum is just to show how dumb the speculation is that Philo regarded the name of the Logos as "Jesus.".

Do we have someone here this stupid?

Does modern scholarship view this?


As far as I know Philo evolved his own concept of logos, and it has nothing to do with Jesus what so ever.

[Secret Alias]

ευδαιμονία ?? = bliss? blessedness?

ευστοχία ??

These words weren't grabbed off the internet.

[Secret Alias]

I've noted before you have a level of intellectual sophistication too advanced to (a) claim you didn't know that the translation you provided of the LXX Zechariah wasn't the LXX Zechariah and (b) pretend you can't see the holes in Carrier's thesis are gaping ones. You're too smart to be this dumb.

[Peter Kirby]

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)?

Carrier has provided that. I have repeated it in the other thread.

I need to know more about Philo's relevant works, and their meanings via good translations & in context and before I can comment further.

Fair enough.

Allow me to comment briefly on your existing remarks, then... to show why they were both unpleasant and feckless.

misrepresentation of Carrier's argument

A conveniently "nebulous" argument that still hasn't clearly and simply been laid out according to your own understanding. Making quotations does not demonstrate an understanding of a subject. If you're going to claim misrepresentation, show it.

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

... the part in which "key" and "significant" quotes are made ... and others are asked to "address" them (whatever that means) ...

There is more to yet tease out there.

In other news, grass is green, and the sky is blue.

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.

Ironically, the "Kirby version" phrasing of these "premises" and this "conclusion" is drawn directly from Carrier, with some connective tissue to complete the sense (and relatively minor differences). While MrMacSon accuses me of "putting words in Carrier and Philo's mouths," every change in wording suggested by MrMacSon (to make it more palatable to him, perhaps) takes the wording further away from what Carrier said.

Richard Carrier wrote (emphasis added):

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.

The summary:

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.

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 ??

[/list]

Really?

Hopefully you can write something helpful at some point. Good luck finding something in the Greek.

[MrMacSon]

But. You. Have. Greek. Letters. Coming. Out. Of. Your. Keyboard. But. Claim. To. Be. Ignorant. Of. Greek.

Perplexing.

ευδαιμονία ?? = bliss? blessedness?

ευστοχία ??

These words weren't grabbed off the internet.

I Google-Translated 'felicity', then merely cut and pasted those Greek words, and those 'definitions'

I've noted before you have a level of intellectual sophistication too advanced to (a) claim you didn't know that the translation you provided of the LXX Zechariah wasn't the LXX Zechariah and (b) pretend you can't see the holes in Carrier's thesis are gaping ones. You're too smart to be this dumb.

FFS. I have told you the truth of what happened.

I have also pointed out there are several translations of the LXX Zechariah, and the made the point that Philo's commentary about or around it is more important that what you are weirdly focusing on

[Peter Kirby]

Given that the thread has been inundated with pages of meaningless stuff from MrMacSon (and equally meaningless sniping from Secret Alias), allow me to restate Carrier's argument (as presented in that blog post) and the criticism of it.

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.

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. Both authors held beliefs about an intermediary figure, whatever it is named. Both were informed by a shared cultural and religious background.

These "coincidences" do not necessitate Carrier's particular explanation of them.

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.

[MrMacSon]

Richard Carrier wrote (emphasis added):

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.

The summary:

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.

Yet, the main point Carrier makes there is

• "Philo said he made the connection because the archangel in question was already known to him as the Son of God & the High Priest, and the only person in Zechariah passage he quotes who is identified as the Son of God & the High Priest, is Jesus"

Moreover ---

• 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

--- do we find any such evidence?

[Peter Kirby]

Richard Carrier wrote (emphasis added):

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.

The summary:

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.

Yet, the main point Carrier makes there is

• "Philo said he made the connection because the archangel in question was already known to him as the Son of God & the High Priest, and the only person in Zechariah passage he quotes who is identified as the Son of God & the High Priest, is Jesus"

Moreover ---

• 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

--- do we find any such evidence?

Dear God... more vacuous quotation and waffling. If you have something to say, please say it.

[MrMacSon]

. If you have something to say, please say it.

I think you are misrepresenting Carrier.

The point Carrier makes is

• "Philo said he made the connection because the archangel in question was already known to him as the Son of God & the High Priest, and the only person in Zechariah passage he quotes who is identified as the Son of God & the High Priest[/b], is Jesus"

not what you said Carrier said.