Page 10 of 11

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:29 am
by Giuseppe
In whiletime, even my preferred interpretation is confuted. :(

Excuse if I insist, Peter, but do you think that Philo is claiming that the words

'Behold the man hailed Branch etc''

were not inspired according to Philo since there the word 'man' appears (and a man cannot be hailed in that way) ?

Was Philo so heretic to mean not-inspired these words quoted in Zech?

Or was he rather a harmonizer? As these people that want harmonize all the pauline passages?

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:49 am
by Peter Kirby
Giuseppe wrote:the word 'man' appears (and a man cannot be hailed in that way) ?
To answer your own question, all you would have to do is to pay close attention to what Philo says.

Loeb translation, the quotation of Zechariah 6 passage:
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.
Loeb translation, quotation of the passage at the start of the thread:
But they who 145 live in the knowledge of the One are rightly called " Sons of God," as Moses also acknowledges when he says, •-•-Ye are sons of the Lord God " (Deut. xiv. 1), and " God who begat thee " (ibid, xxxii. 18), and " Is not He Himself thy father ? " (ibid. 6). Indeed with those whose soul is thus disposed it follows that they hold moral beauty to be the only good, and this serves as a counterwork engineered by veteran warriors to fight the cause which makes Pleasure the end and to subvert and overthrow it.a But if there 146 be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God's First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were. And many names are his, for he is called, " the Beginning," and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His image, and " he that sees," that is Israel. And 147 therefore I was moved a few pages above a to praise the virtues of those who say that " We are all sons of one man " (Gen. xlii. 11). For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of His invisible image, the most holy Word. For the Word is the eldest-born image of God. And 148 often indeed in the law-book we find another phrase, " sons of Israel," hearers, that is, sons of him that sees, since hearing stands second in estimation and below sight, and the recipient of teaching is always second to him with whom realities present their forms clear to his vision and not through the medium of instruction.
Philo distinguishes between the heavenly Man, who is the divine image, and ordinary men composed of both body and soul.

In both cases, the word "man" does apply.

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:57 am
by Peter Kirby
In this thread, we've learned:

1) Philo attributes the Logos with the name "Israel."

2) Philo attributes the Logos with the name "East" (Anatole) from Zechariah 6.

3) Philo refers to many other attributes of the Logos in his books.

4) Philo's books do not say that the Logos is named "Jesus."

5) Some people desperately want Philo to have the Logos named "Jesus," for reasons that are their own (and Carrier's).

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:21 am
by Secret Alias
I would add that we learned than 'Man' and specifically 'Man of God' is identified by Philo as the name of the Logos and that makes my association with 'Ish' (and 'Ish HaElohim') virtually certain but of course I am biased ...

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:03 am
by Secret Alias
But how do we reconcile the fact that Philo repeatedly says that even though man was created in the image of God, god is not properly conceived as having an anthropomorphic shape or any shape at all? Well remember that aleph-shin in Hebrew means both man and fire and then that the Samaritans preserve that the ten commandments were written with fire (cf Deut 33 = Hebrew-Persian = eshdat 'fire Law').

Here is Philo on God's fiery nature:
This, then, may be enough to say on these subjects; but it is necessary now to connect with these things what I am about to say, namely, that it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments, as they truly are, to the whole assembled nation of men and women altogether. Did he then do so, uttering himself some kind of voice? Away! let not such an idea ever enter your mind; for God is not like a man, in need of a mouth, and of a tongue, and of a windpipe, but as it seems to me, he at that time wrought a most conspicuous and evidently holy miracle, commanding an invisible sound to be created in the air, more marvellous than all the instruments that ever existed, attuned to perfect harmonies; and that not an inanimate one, nor yet, on the other hand, one that at all resembled any nature composed of soul and body; but rather it was a rational soul filled with clearness and distinctness, which fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a kind of flaming fire, and so sounded forth so loud and articulate a voice like a breath passing through a trumpet, so that those who were at a great distance appeared to hear equally with those who were nearest to it. For the voices of men, when they are spread over a very long distance, do naturally become weaker and weaker, so that those who are at a distance from them cannot arrive at a clear comprehension of them, but their understanding is gradually dimmed by the extension of the sound over a larger space, since the organs also by which it is extended are perishable. But the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and excited a new kind of miraculous voice, and diffusing its sound in every direction, made the end more conspicuous at a distance than the beginning, implanting in the soul of each individual another hearing much superior to that which exists through the medium of the ears. For the one, being in some degree a slower kind of external sense, remains in a state of inactivity until it is struck by the air, and so put in motion. But the sense of the inspired mind outstrips that, going forth with the most rapid motion to meet what is said. [Decalogue 32 - 34]
and again:
And, moreover, as was natural, he filled the whole place with miraculous signs and works, with noises of thunder too great for the hearing to support, and with the most radiant brilliancy of flashes of lightning, and with the sound of an invisible trumpet extending to a great distance, and with the march of a cloud, which, like a pillar, had its foundation fixed firmly on the earth, but raised the rest of its body even to the height of heaven; and, last of all, by the impetuosity of a heavenly fire, which overshadowed everything around with a dense smoke. For it was fitting that, when the power of God came among them, none of the parts of the world should be quiet, but that everything should be put in motion to minister to his service. And the people stood by, having kept themselves clean from all connection with women, and having abstained from all pleasures, except those which arise from a participation in necessary food, having been purifying themselves with baths and ablutions for three days, and having washed their garments and being all clothed in the purest white robes, and standing on tiptoe and pricking up their ears, in compliance with the exhortations of Moses, who had forewarned them to prepare for the solemn assembly; for he knew that such would take place, when he, having been summoned up alone, gave forth the prophetic commands of God. And a voice sounded forth from out of the midst of the fire which had flowed from heaven, a most marvellous and awful voice, the flame being endowed with articulate speech in a language familiar to the hearers, which expressed its words with such clearness and distinctness that the people seemed rather to be seeing than hearing it. And the law testifies to the accuracy of my statement, where it is written, "And all the people beheld the voice most evidently." For the truth is that the voice of men is calculated to be heard; but that of God to be really and truly seen. Why is this? Because all that God says are not words, but actions which the eyes determine on before the ears. It is, therefore, with great beauty, and also with a proper sense of what is consistent with the dignity of God, that the voice is said to have come forth out of the fire; for the oracles of God are accurately understood and tested like gold by the fire. And God also intimates to us something of this kind by a figure. Since the property of fire is partly to give light, and partly to burn, those who think fit to show themselves obedient to the sacred commands shall live for ever and ever as in a light which is never darkened, having his laws themselves as stars giving light in their soul. But all those who are stubborn and disobedient are for ever inflamed, and burnt, and consumed by their internal appetites, which, like flame, will destroy all the life of those who possess them.
So who is this talking 'fire' speaking to the Israelites while God is still up in heaven (look at the fucking text of Exodus and see that there is another voice coming from heaven while the Israelites and Moses engage with this 'talking fire')? Hmmm. The 'fire' is giving the Israelites the ten commandments but there is another voice in heaven too? I wonder, I wonder, I wonder ...

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:13 am
by Secret Alias
So Philo in discussing Zechariah 6 mentions a 'man' who is distinct from men of flesh and blood and is at once the Logos. At the same time there is this 'talking fire' which gave humanity the 'logos' of the universe - the ten commandments. But Philo wasn't exactly proficient at Hebrew so he might not have known that esh means both man and God (cf Ezekiel's preservation of this phenomenon).

Ok so let's see if this 'talking fire' has a name or a shape or is described as the Logos. Where should we look for this evidence? Hmmm. Since Philo was a Jew, let's try and think where Jews might see another 'sighting' of this 'talking fire' guy. (scratches head)

Oh I know! Exodus chapter 3. What does Philo say about the 'burning bush'? Let's look that up:
And when Moses was leading his flock into a situation full of good water and good grass, where there was also a great deal of herbage especially suitable for sheep, he came upon a certain grove in a valley, where he saw a most marvellous sight. There was a bush or briar, a very thorny plant, and very weak and supple. This bush was on a sudden set in a blaze without any one applying any fire to it, and being entirely enveloped from the root to the topmost branch by the abundant flame, as though it had proceeded from some fountain showering fire over it, it nevertheless remained whole without being consumed, like some impassible essence, and not as if it were itself the natural fuel for fire, but rather as if it were taking the fire for its own fuel. (66) And in the middle of the flame there was seen a certain very beautiful form, not resembling any visible thing, a most Godlike image, emitting a light more brilliant than fire, which any one might have imagined to be the image of the living God. But let it be called an angel, because it merely related (dieµngelleto) the events which were about to happen in a silence more distinct than any voice by reason of the marvellous sight which was thus exhibited. (67) For the burning bush was a symbol of the oppressed people, and the burning fire was a symbol of the oppressors; and the circumstance of the burning bush not being consumed was an emblem of the fact that the people thus oppressed would not be destroyed by those who were attacking them, but that their hostility would be unsuccessful and fruitless to the one party, and the fact of their being plotted against would fail to be injurious to the others. The angel, again, was the emblem of the providence of God, who mitigates circumstances which appear very formidable, so as to produce from them great tranquillity beyond the hopes or expectation of any one. [Vita Moses 61f]
So let's check off our list. Talking fire? Check? "A certain beautiful form"? Check. "not resembling any visible thing?" Sounds sort of like Philo's oft repeated statement that while 'man was created in God's image, God doesn't have a form that can be seen with the eyes. Check. "Image of the living God" nonetheless? Check. Angel? Yes. It's beginning to sound like the Logos don't you think? "The angel was the emblem of the providence of God." I think we'll have to check the Greek because it's beginning to sound that we've discovered that who the Logos is for Philo.

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:16 am
by Secret Alias
And the identification of the 'burning bush' as a symbol for the 359 year captivity of the Israelites in Egypt is interesting too:
an emblem of the fact that the people thus oppressed would not be destroyed by those who were attacking them, but that their hostility would be unsuccessful and fruitless to the one party, and the fact of their being plotted against would fail to be injurious to the others
I have to look up that word 'emblem' in Greek when I get a chance ...

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:18 am
by Secret Alias
Interesting to also note that the Samaritan text of Exodus does not identify 'Yahweh' as speaking from the fire but 'Elohim' so the 'fire of Elohim' = 'man of Elohim' = man of God = the name of the Logos in Philo, Samaritan tradition etc.

... but the identity of the Logos is still 'a mystery' which can only be solved by appealing to a convoluted radical atheist interpretation of Zechariah. Yeah, that's the ticket.

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:23 am
by Secret Alias
The high priest who is the living symbol of the Logos is enveloped by a scarlet robe (presumably) like the Logos was in the burning bush:
The high priest, then, being equipped in this way, is properly prepared for the performance of all sacred ceremonies, that, whenever he enters the temple to offer up the prayers and sacrifices in use among his nation, all the world may likewise enter in with him, by means of the imitations of it which he bears about him, the garment reaching to his feet, being the imitation of the air, the pomegranate of the water, the flowery hem of the earth, and the scarlet dye of his robe being the emblem of fire; also, the mantle over his shoulders being a representation of heaven itself; the two hemispheres being further indicated by the round emeralds on the shoulder-blades, on each of which were engraved six characters equivalent to six signs of the zodiac; the twelve stones arranged on the breast in four rows of three stones each, namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe.[Vita Moses 131 - 133]
Philo says that the world was made after the image of God who is the Logos in case people didn't know that too.

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

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:28 am
by Secret Alias
In exactly the same manner as Marqe (I can cite the passages from the Memar) the Exodus occurs because the second power of God wrapped in the heavenly fire mixes with water and 'makes it alive' in effect and causes it to turn back and then destroy the Egyptians:
Then, also, there was a rush onwards of their enemies pursuing them, without stopped to take breath, hastening to their own destruction, and a driving forward of the cloud that guarded the rear of the Hebrews, on which there was a certain divine appearance of fire emitting a brilliant blaze, and a reflux of the sea, which up to that moment had been cut in two parts and stood asunder, and a sudden returning of the part which had been cut off and dried up into its original channel, and an utter destruction of the enemy, whom the walls the sea, which had been congealed and which now turned back again, overwhelmed, and the sea pouring down and hurrying into what had just been a road, as if into some deep ravine, washed away every thing, and there was evidence of the completeness of the destruction in the bodies which floated on the waters, and which strewed the surface of the sea; and a great agitation of the waves, by which all the dead were cast up into a heap on the opposite shore, becoming a necessary spectacle to those who had been delivered, and to whom it had been granted not merely to escape from their dangers, but also to behold their enemies punished, in a manner too marvellous for description, by no human but by a divine power. [ibid ]
This the knowledge you get from avoiding Greek myths in order to make sense of Philo. Philo's core ideas are fully Jewish. They are almost identical with Marqe's because they were near contemporaries - one writing in Greek, the other Hebrew (and later preserved in Aramaic).