Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:
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.

I'd say "that's what Philo says about that passage from Zech 6:12"

As far as

Peter Kirby wrote:
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.

Note Philo says

• ['East' or 'Rising' is] "A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul .."

then the passage says

• but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image
  
  
  (that 'incorporeal being' = 'a 'man' who is only a 'divine image' (??) - several passages in the book of Zechariah calls angels 'men')

and the sentence finishes

• " ..you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity."

I think that, in saying all that, Philo is saying the name East or Rising (Anatole) is appropriate for a man with body and soul, but not for what is only a [divine] *image of a man* ( a 'soul' alone ??).

MrMacSon wrote:

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".

Okay. I take that back. You've given several examples of your differences with Carrier. (At the time I wrote that, I was actually trying to keep myself from writing anything even more spiteful in reply, given the undiscriminating verbal lashing that I had just received after daring to criticize what Carrier wrote.)

MrMacSon wrote:I think that, in saying "a very novel appellation indeed", Philo is saying it is appropriate for a man compounded of body and soul, but not for what is only a [divine] *image of a man*.

Thank you for this explanation.

Here is the Loeb translation, in any case:

I have heard also an oracle 62 from the lips of one of the disciples of Moses, which runs thus: " Behold a man whose name is the rising " (Zech. vi. 12), strangest of titles, surely, if you suppose that a being composed of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree that the name of " rising " assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of 63 all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied.

(I appreciate the explanation, but there does not seem to be any basis for what you're suggesting here, so far as I can see. Did you perhaps mean to write, "Philo is saying it is inappropriate for a man compounded of body and soul"?)

Peter Kirby wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:I think that, in saying "a very novel appellation indeed", Philo is saying it is appropriate for a man compounded of body and soul, but not for what is only a [divine] *image of a man*.

Thank you for this explanation.

Here is the Loeb translation, in any case:

I have heard also an oracle 62 from the lips of one of the disciples of Moses, which runs thus: " Behold a man whose name is the rising " (Zech. vi. 12), strangest of titles, surely, if you suppose that a being composed of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree that the name of " rising " assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of 63 all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied.

(I appreciate the explanation, but there does not seem to be any basis for what you're suggesting here, so far as I can see.)

Note that I changed that last passage from

MrMacSon wrote:I think that, in saying "a very novel appellation indeed", Philo is saying it is appropriate for a man compounded of body and soul, but not for what is only a [divine] *image of a man*.

to

• "I think that, in saying all that, Philo is saying the name East or Rising (Anatole) is appropriate for a man with body and soul, but not for what is only a [divine] *image of a man* ( a 'soul' alone ??)."

but, having now seen the Loeb -

"..strangest of titles, surely .."

and

" .. if you suppose that a being composed of soul and body is here described ..."

- changes the context.

and

if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree that the name of "rising " assigned to him quite truly describes him

changes the context, too.

To then say

For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up .. and elsewhere calls him His first-born ...

parallels aspects of many of these texts where images or angels or both are variably called 'a man' -ie. equivocation prevails in them.

62-63
"... For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of 63 all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied" -

- would seem to be significant if Philo attributed similar meaning to Jozadak/Jehozadak' (in the name 'Jeshua/Joshua, son of Jozadak/Jehozadak') that Carrier has (and others' have*).

* ie. by definition of what 'Jozadak' or 'Jehozadak' (or both) mean.

Peter Kirby wrote:
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.

I disagree. You are claiming that it's not a coincidence that Paul and Philo adored an archangel with x, y, z attributes (beyond their name).
You are claiming that it was usual for Jews be adoring an archangel (beyond his name) and not only God. This is absurd. The Jews were monotheists. Philo was an eccentric person with all his allegories. Philo was NEO-PLATONIC. His Logos was the Platonic Adam. Philo was influenced entirely from neo-platonism.
Philo and Paul and some Jew from Qumran were the unique people adoring an archangel (respectively: the Logos, Christ Jesus and Melchizedek).

Therefore, IF two archangels are adored by two Jews in two different places is already a COINCIDENCE.

IF two archangels share the same attributes is another coincidence.

But IF these two archangels share the same name, too, then that is not more a coincidence.

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.

I disagree again, and entirely. For Philo Logos is already impliciter Son of God and High Priest everywhere the name 'Logos' appears. Philo is saying that a man should not be called 'Anatole' because only the Logos should be called 'Anatole'. But accordingly Philo cannot confute Zech directly. Philo, after all, is not a heretic until this point. Philo is an harmonizer, not a debunker of Zech. Philo has to harmonize his belief (that Anatole is the logos and only the Logos) with the reading of Zech 6:12 (who gives to a man the title 'Anatole'). Therefore the solution for Philo is only one: to mean Joshua son of Josedec as the man that is hailed Anatole. In this way the harmonization is made: via Joshua son of Josedec, the original author of Zechariah is saying, in the eyes of Philo, that the man hailed Anatole is a high priest (Joshua was a high priest) and a son of God (Joshua was son of Josedec, i.e. son of Jeova the Right). This means that, for Philo, the man Joshua is only an allegory of the archangelic Logos (the true legitimate entity to be hailed Anatole). Joshua can remain a mortal historical man, but he, with his name and his role, is simbolic of a divine entity: the archangelic Logos.

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.

It's impossible that the author of Tanak Zech 6:12 (where ''apparently'' the Joshua is the Anatole, according to many scholars and academics) - even if you assume that the Tanak is written after the Septuagint - reflects a view about Joshua and the Anatole that is late and after-Philo. Because it's impossible that some Jews could have made a so big favour to Christians, assuming in their Tanak a reading of Zech 6:12 where the Tsemach is Joshua ''apparently'' (according to many scholars and academics).

Therefore it's possible, even likely, a reading of Zech 6:12 by some Jews pre-Philo where the Joshua is ''apparently'' the Anatole.

Remember that the talmudist says that the Messiah ben Joseph is the messianic suffering Branch mentioned in Zechariah. This reflects securely a pre-christian view.
And Joshua son of Josedec is the suffering high priest in Zech 6. A coincidence?

... it would seem to be significant if Philo attributed similar meaning to Jozadak/Jehozadak' (in the name 'Jeshua/Joshua, son of Jozadak/Jehozadak') that Carrier has (and others' have*).

All of your posts have been examples of warped subjective thinking. Do you understand that Philo understood Yahweh = kurios? Do you understand that Philo didn't identify the Logos as kurios? Do you get the concept that these powers are separate 'beings' each of whom had a role in the function of the godhead? How then can you say this nonsense? Were you designed in a factory somewhere by Carrier to appear at this forum and find some desperate way that he can be right in spite of the terrible methodology in his argument?

Let me spell it out once again:

kurios = Yahweh
theos = Elohim
logos = Ish

This is it! You can't be this stupid. When Philo identifies 'the man of God' as a name of the Logos he is telling his readers that the title which this god gave to Moses in Exodus (Ish haElohim) is the name or identity of the Logos. That's it! The Logos is a heavenly man! Similarly when Philo mentions 'a man' referenced by Zechariah as the anatole he can't possibly be connecting this with Jesus the son of Jozadak or however else you want to spell this out. You are the dumbest person ever to appear at the forum. This plain, simple fact can't be too complicate for any other than a complete moron.

Only someone who willfully deceives themselves into thinking that Richard Carrier had a heaven sent vision or understand whose infallibility comes from (a) a omniscient deity or (b) time travel so that he could actually talk to Philo and/or Zechariah themselves to get the correct understandings of matters.

Again you can't possibly be this dumb. The passage you cited has absolutely nothing to do with 'Jozadak.' This is ridiculous.

Where do you see 'Yahweh is righteous' in:

"... For that man is the eldest son,

No I see the word 'man':

whom the Father of 63 all raised up,

No, no mention of Yahweh is rightousness

and elsewhere calls him His first-born,

No, no mention here either:

and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father,

No, nothing here either:

and shaped the different kinds,

Nope:

looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied" -

End of story. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. You are officially the stupidest person at the forum.

According to Peter, the logic of Philo is the following:

1) Philo reads in Zech that a man is hailed Ἀνατολὴ
2) but for Philo Ἀνατολὴ is only the Logos
3) therefore: Zechariah was only an idiot and an ignorant if he claimed the point 1.

According to Carrier, the logic of Philo is the following:
1) Philo reads in Zech that a man is hailed Ἀνατολὴ
2) but for Philo Ἀνατολὴ is only the Logos
3) therefore: Zechariah was indeed an intelligent and astute man since he did mean that the man HIGH PRIEST and 'Son of Jeova the Right' 'JOSHUA' is hailed Ἀνατολὴ.


Peter's logic requires that Philo was a heretic regarding the traditional meaning of Zech (a man). Carrier's logic doesn't.

Therefore Richard wins and Peter loses.

Giuseppe wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:
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.

I disagree. You are claiming that it's not a coincidence that Paul and Philo adored an archangel with x, y, z attributes (beyond their name).
You are claiming that it was usual for Jews be adoring an archangel (beyond his name) and not only God. This is absurd. The Jews were monotheists. Philo was an eccentric person with all his allegories. Philo was NEO-PLATONIC. His Logos was the Platonic Adam. Philo was influenced entirely from neo-platonism.
Philo and Paul and some Jew from Qumran were the unique people adoring an archangel (respectively: the Logos, Christ Jesus and Melchizedek).

Therefore, IF two archangels are adored by two Jews in two different places is already a COINCIDENCE.

IF two archangels share the same attributes is another coincidence.

But IF these two archangels share the same name, too, then that is not more a coincidence.

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.

I disagree again, and entirely. For Philo Logos is already impliciter Son of God and High Priest everywhere the name 'Logos' appears. Philo is saying that a man should not be called 'Anatole' because only the Logos should be called 'Anatole'. But accordingly Philo cannot confute Zech directly. Philo, after all, is not a heretic until this point. Philo is an harmonizer, not a debunker of Zech. Philo has to harmonize his belief (that Anatole is the logos and only the Logos) with the reading of Zech 6:12 (who gives to a man the title 'Anatole'). Therefore the solution for Philo is only one: to mean Joshua son of Josedec as the man that is hailed Anatole. In this way the harmonization is made: via Joshua son of Josedec, the original author of Zechariah is saying, in the eyes of Philo, that the man hailed Anatole is a high priest (Joshua was a high priest) and a son of God (Joshua was son of Josedec, i.e. son of Jeova the Right). This means that, for Philo, the man Joshua is only an allegory of the archangelic Logos (the true legitimate entity to be hailed Anatole). Joshua can remain a mortal historical man, but he, with his name and his role, is simbolic of a divine entity: the archangelic Logos.

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.

It's impossible that the author of Tanak Zech 6:12 (where ''apparently'' the Joshua is the Anatole, according to many scholars and academics) - even if you assume that the Tanak is written after the Septuagint - reflects a view about Joshua and the Anatole that is late and after-Philo. Because it's impossible that some Jews could have made a so big favour to Christians, assuming in their Tanak a reading of Zech 6:12 where the Tsemach is Joshua ''apparently'' (according to many scholars and academics).

Therefore it's possible, even likely, a reading of Zech 6:12 by some Jews pre-Philo where the Joshua is ''apparently'' the Anatole.

Remember that the talmudist says that the Messiah ben Joseph is the messianic suffering Branch mentioned in Zechariah. This reflects securely a pre-christian view.
And Joshua son of Josedec is the suffering high priest in Zech 6. A coincidence?

Giuseppe wrote:According to Peter, the logic of Philo is the following:

1) Philo reads in Zech that a man is hailed Ἀνατολὴ
2) but for Philo Ἀνατολὴ is only the Logos
3) therefore: Zechariah was only an idiot and an ignorant if he claimed the point 1.

According to Carrier, the logic of Philo is the following:
1) Philo reads in Zech that a man is hailed Ἀνατολὴ
2) but for Philo Ἀνατολὴ is only the Logos
3) therefore: Zechariah was indeed an intelligent and astute man since he did mean that the man HIGH PRIEST and 'Son of Jeova the Right' 'JOSHUA' is hailed Ἀνατολὴ.


Peter's logic requires that Philo was a heretic regarding the traditional meaning of Zech (a man). Carrier's logic doesn't.

Therefore Richard wins and Peter loses.

Once again, Guiseppe has shown himself to be so far detached from reality that there is no point to responding in any detail.

Indeed, Guiseppe will have to work hard in the future to prove that he can actually make a positive, intelligent contribution at the forum at all.