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

[MrMacSon]

.
Mind you, I don't think that Philo quotes 'Jesus'

And, I think Carrier is disingenuous calling Jeshua/Joshua, son of Josedak, 'Jesus'

[MrMacSon]

And one more point. Runia told me a long time ago - stay away from that widely circulating English translation (Whiston? or something like that) - the one Peter has up on his site. Use the Loeb. It's not just the Greek is there. The English translation is pretty loose. The Loeb is much better.

I tried to access the Loeb, but can't. Can you provide the Loeb for Philo?

[Peter Kirby]

And one more point. Runia told me a long time ago - stay away from that widely circulating English translation (Whiston? or something like that) - the one Peter has up on his site. Use the Loeb. It's not just the Greek is there. The English translation is pretty loose. The Loeb is much better.

I tried to access the Loeb, but can't. Can you provide the Loeb for Philo?

What's the point?

All you'd end up doing is quoting them directly and commenting on whether they are interesting. With a good chance of quoting some other things as well.

God forbid you use a brain cell for even a paraphrase... that would actually be saying something.

In any case, you can search here: http://bookzz.org/

[MrMacSon]

In any case, you can search here: http://bookzz.org/

Cheers.

The philosopher Philo was born about 20 BCE to a prominent Jewish family in Alexandria, the chief home of the Jewish Diaspora as well as the chief center of Hellenistic culture; he was trained in Greek as well as Jewish learning. In attempting to reconcile biblical teachings with Greek philosophy he developed ideas that had wide influence on Christian and Jewish religious thought.

http://bookzz.org/book/885667/dba01b

[Peter Kirby]

I think you are misrepresenting Carrier.

After several vague posts from MrMacSon, I am able to offer a guess about what might be bothering him. (And this is the problem with not saying whatever is on your mind. Why should I have to guess?)

MrMacSon says that Carrier makes a "reasonable inductive" argument. Notice the word "inductive."

MrMacSon quotes Carrier and asks, "do we find any such evidence?" Notice the word "evidence."

The post that I wrote had two premises, a conclusion (all numbered), and the word "therefore."

So I am finally able to guess that MrMacSon might be implicitly making the criticism that I have misrepresented Carrier as though I believe Carrier is attempting to make a sound deductive argument.

(And, if so -- gee, why didn't you just say that? I can only guess that it's because MrMacSon has a habit of not saying what he is thinking in posts, as a defensive technique of avoiding saying anything that could then be criticized itself. So he tries to get readers to guess what he means with quotes and subtle hints, if anything.)

In any case --

I did not understand Carrier to be specifically making a deductive argument, sound or otherwise. I apologize if the ordered premises and the word 'therefore' may have been misleading in this regard.

Because the bulk of my post didn't even criticize the relationship of the premises to the conclusion but rather pointed out what is false about the premises and the conclusion, any comments on whether Carrier's argument is deductive, inductive, or what-have-you would go well beyond the points that I was making. My points were much more simple than that.

(One clue to the fact that I didn't understand Carrier to be making a strictly deductive argument would be that the stated premises and conclusion were, by and large, lifted directly from Carrier's words... and do not, without additional premises, form a strictly valid deductive argument, nor did Carrier or I represent that they would.)

If I am misrepresenting you, MrMacSon, it may be because of your persistent refusal to speak plainly.

[MrMacSon]

... MrMacSon might be implicitly making the criticism that I have misrepresented Carrier as though I believe Carrier is attempting to make a sound deductive argument.

No. I think you misrepresent Carrier per se.

The issue of you trying to frame Carrier's inductive arguments as a deductive argument is a side-issue.

(And, if so -- gee, why didn't you just say that? I can only guess that it's because MrMacSon has a habit of not saying what he is thinking in posts, as a defensive technique of avoiding saying anything that could then be criticized itself. So he tries to get readers to guess what he means with quotes and subtle hints, if anything.)

Quite frankly, I'm discombobulated by dealing with the overt adversary via ad hominems and other blatant fallacies of Huller aka Alias and yourself.

As I have said, seeking to be black or white about these nebulous texts and Philo's nebulous commentary (on 'origins' or salvation via nebulous OT texts) seems pointless.

Have fun.

eta: & please note -

... I don't think that "Philo quotes 'Jesus'."

And, I think Carrier is disingenuous calling Jeshua/Joshua, son of Josedak, 'Jesus'

[Peter Kirby]

No. I think you misrepresent Carrier per se.

Without even saying how, this statement of your personal belief is completely useless in the context of the discussion.

You should be aware that throwing around accusations like this, without even an explanation, can lead to adversarial responses.

[MrMacSon]

I have given an explanation - I have repeatedly said we need to evaluation what Carrier has said in light of what Philo said, rather than discussion here repeatedly referring primarily to Zechariah.

Hence

.. How about addressing -

To me, the key parts of this passage -

• (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 .... 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"

and, look at felicity in Greek (as suggested by Huller) -

ευδαιμονία ?? = bliss? blessedness?

ευστοχία ??

[Peter Kirby]

I have given an explanation - I have repeatedly said we need to evaluation what Carrier has said in light of what Philo said, rather than discussion here repeatedly referring primarily to Zechariah.

Hence

.. How about addressing -

To me, the key parts of this passage -

• (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"

That is not much of an explanation.

That is a series of quotes without any explanation of what their significance is, in your mind.

You've asked Huller to "address" them. What, exactly, is it that he was supposed to have been addressing?

If your only point is that we must look at things "in light of what Philo said," that (a) is actually what I was doing in this thread and (b) still doesn't actually explain how you think I am misrepresenting Carrier in the post referenced.

[Peter Kirby]

Once again, lest we lose sight of the subject being discussed here. I quoted Carrier and replied to his points, particularly as expressed in the last blog post (and also with his previous comments, e.g. in his book, in mind).

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.

(Note: This is not to represent Carrier's argument as being "deductive" in nature.)

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.