Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Just was reading this reference:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXV ... &q&f=false

Note "the Logos' many names listed in Conf. 146."

http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book15.html
And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

Note what is not there and what is.

What is your point here?


Many of the early usage of "son of god" was polytheistic and spiritual in nature, angels ect, and regarded Els children as sons of god. Yahweh was son of god, and Baal.

Then your applying Philos Hellenism to the concept for later context on Jesus time period?

His point is that Jesus was not a name of the Logos for Philo.

It is curious that Origen pretends that Celsus is unlearned when he says that Jews call upon the 'Son of God.' Clearly Origen knew that Philo did. This would argue on behalf of the idea that Celsus was a near contemporary of Origen.

Peter Kirby wrote:Just was reading this reference:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXV ... &q&f=false

Note "the Logos' many names listed in Conf. 146."

http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book15.html

• And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

Note what is not there and what is.

Hedging bets.

From
https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXV ... &q&f=false

• "It appears that Philo is identifying the Logos with the high priest and with the signet, in which was inscribed the Divine Name, worn by the high priest."

... and do you have any idea how many high priests there were in the Second Commonwealth period down to Philo? Larry the high priest, Joe the high priest, Nick and Jack, Bob the high priest, Tony etc. My God. This is what's wrong with the thinking of these people. Philo isn't thinking of a particular high priest but the ideal high priest who doesn't have a human name. Jeez.

as the great archangel of many names;

Indeed, I have interpreted this as meaning that Philo was justified to recognize his archangelic Logos in any archangel adored by marginal Jews (Melchizedek, Jesus, Moses, etc).

''Many names'' is more than only 5 names:

1) for he is called, the authority,
2) and the name of God,
3) and the Word,
4) and man according to God's image,
5) and he who sees Israel.

Peter Kirby wrote:the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

By the way, I suspect that there is a transcription error.

1) Scholarly references say that Philo applies the name Israel to the Logos.
2) Philo repeatedly (49 times, according to one reference) defines "Israel" etymologically as "one who sees God."
3) What the heck is "he who sees Israel" supposed to mean anyway?

So we can suspect that the text read this (and can verify it ? -- this is a modern transcription error):

Peter Kirby wrote:the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees, Israel.

This implies that a particular "name" is given in this list.

outhouse wrote:What is your point here?

The significance to this forum is just to show how dumb the speculation is that Philo regarded the name of the Logos as "Jesus." The true believers will still believe, in spite of both lack of evidence and indications against their belief. After all, there is no proof that they are wrong! And that is enough for a true believer.

Secret Alias wrote: ... Philo isn't thinking of a particular high priest but the ideal high priest who doesn't have a human name.

I agree Philo is thinking of an ideal (or idealized) high priest.

Peter Kirby wrote:

the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees God, Israel.

This implies that a particular "name" is given in this list.

A few other passages in Conf suggest Philo was contemplating a name (without naming 'it'.).

Peter Kirby wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

By the way, I suspect that there is a transcription error.

1) Scholarly references say that Philo applies the name Israel to the Logos.
2) Philo repeatedly (49 times, according to one reference) defines "Israel" etymologically as "one who sees God."
3) What the heck is "he who sees Israel" supposed to mean anyway?

So we can suspect that the text read this (and can verify it ? -- this is a modern transcription error):

Peter Kirby wrote:the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees, Israel.

This implies that a particular "name" is given in this list.

Okay. Close. It's basically just missing a comma in the online translation (which is obviously not to say that there are "commas" in the original Greek but that a translation needs a comma to be accurate). Here is the Loeb translation:

But if there 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.

καϊ γάρ άρχή και όνομα θεοΰ καϊ λόγος και ό κατ' εικόνα άνθρωπος καϊ ό ορών, Ισραήλ, προσαγορεύεται

So Philo does give the Logos the name "Israel."