Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus angel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:If the priest ''at his right hand'' in LXX-Zech 6:13 is not the high priest Joshua, as says Carrier, can all that be only a coincidence?
If the priest is not the high priest Joshua, then does he play any role in Philo's analogy? Or is Philo ignoring that part of Zech 6:13?
The text Carrier gives is
6:11 kai lêpsê argurion kai chrusion kai poiêseis stephanous kai epithêseis epi tên kefalên iêsou tou iôsedek tou hiereôs tou megalou

6:12 kai ereis pros auton tade legei kurios pantokratôr idou anêr anatolê onoma autô kai hupokatôthen autou anatelei kai oikodomêsei ton oikon kuriou

6:13 kai autov lêmpsetai aretên kai kathietai kai katarxei epi tou thronou autou kai estai ho hiereus ek dexiôn autou kai boulê eirênikê estai ana meson amphoterôn


6:11 and take silver and pieces of gold and make crowns and lay [them] upon the head of Joshua [the son] of Jehozadak, the high priest

6:12 and say to him this, “The Lord Creator says,
  • ‘Behold the man: the name for him [is] Anatole, and he will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord

    6:13 "...'and he will obtain excellence and sit down and rule upon his throne, and there will be the priest on his right and peaceful counsel will be between them both'."
That, to me, suggests the priest is separate to the person "sitting down and ruling upon his throne".
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote:
6:11 and take silver and pieces of gold and make crowns and lay [them] upon the head of Joshua [the son] of Jehozadak, the high priest
6:12 and say to him this, “The Lord Creator says,
  • ‘Behold the man: the name for him [is] Anatole, and he will rise up [= Anatelei] from below and build the house of the Lord
    6:13 "...'and he will obtain excellence and sit down and rule upon his throne, and there will be the priest on his right and peaceful counsel will be between them both'."
That, to me, suggests the priest is separate to the person "sitting down and ruling upon his throne".
I understand. But does that priest on his right and the peaceful counsel in 6:13 play a part at all in Philo's allegorical reading, according to Dr Carrier or anyone else? Or is Philo just using 6:11 and 6:12 and not 6:13? Just wondering what the thoughts were on that.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote: But does that priest on his right and the peaceful counsel in 6:13 play a part at all in Philo's allegorical reading, according to Dr Carrier or anyone else? Or is Philo just using 6:11 and 6:12 and not 6:13? Just wondering what the thoughts were on that.
Interestingly, Adam Kubis in his paper 'Zechariah 6:12-13 as the Referent of γραφή in John 2:22 and 20:9. A Contribution to Johannine Temple-Christology', cited by Giuseppe on the previous page (p.102) says
The following arguments might be advanced in favor of the reference to Zech 6:12-13 in John 2:22.

Firstly, the Zecharian prophecy is employed in the first part of the diptych (John 2:13-16). It has been argued that the specifically Johannine details found in vv. 14-16 (such as πρόβατα, ϕραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων23 and οἶκον ἐμπορίου24), can each be traced to some passage in the Book of Zechariah.
This can hardly be accounted for by sheer coincidence; rather it is more reasonable to assume that the Book of Zechariah shaped this narrative.
Consequently, many contemporary 'historical Jesus scholars' argue that Jesus’ temple act was a deliberate re-application of Zechariah by Jesus himself.25 If this is the case, it might be assumed that some Zecharian influence might also be present in the second part of the narrative (vv. 18-20).

25 Meyer 1992, 262-263; Sanders 1993, 254; Wright 1996, 422.427.586; Evans 2006, 72.
  • Meyer B.F. 1992. Christus Faber: The Master-Builder and the House of God. Allison Park:Pickwick; pp.262-263

    Sanders E.P. 1993. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin Books; p.254

    Wright, N.T. 1996. 'Jesus and the Victory of God'. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins of the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress; pp.422.427.586

    Evans C.A. 2006. 'Zechariah in the Markan Passion Narrative'. Pages 64-80 in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels.
      • I. The Gospel of Mark[/i]. Edited by T.R. Hatina. London – New York: T. & T. Clark; p.72
Those are some pretty highly regarded scholars ...

"a deliberate re-application of Zechariah by Jesus himself" has some interesting implications for their interpretations of Zech 6:11-13

and
Secondly, the reference to Zechariah not only explains the origin of the temple act, but also accounts for the meaning of Jesus’ action. Both the traditional view that interprets Jesus’ action as a protest or an attempt to reform the temple26, and the “new perspective” introduced by Sanders (1985,61-90)* - that sees this act as a dramatic symbol of the imminent destruction of the temple27 - fit into a program of eschatological expectation envisioned by Zechariah. It is Zechariah’s prophecy that envisions YHWH’s spiritual dwelling among his people in the city with a divine flaming wall (2:14), the universal extension of YHWH’s reign (14:9), the worship of all nations in Jerusalem (14:16-19), and the extension of the sanctity of the temple to the whole city and land of Judah (14:21). It fits the Johannine vision of the new spiritual temple made up of Jesus’ resurrected body as well as the spiritual dwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit within Jesus’ disciples (John 14:2-3.23) recruited from among all the nations (11:52; 12:19-20).
  • * Sanders, E.P. 1985. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:23 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by MrMacSon »

and
Ultimately, the new temple is not only Jesus’ resurrected body, but the Father’s household which has many 'rooms': the communion of the Father, the Son and the Spirit (4:23;20:22) with the Father’s sons and daughters (20:17). For this very reason, the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection in John 20 explicitly alludes to the re-creation of humanity. The restored community, initiated by means of Jesus’resurrection and consisting in the innermost unity between the Creator (the Trinity) and his creation, is the new temple.

https://www.academia.edu/1553148/Zechar ... hristology
eta: "the Father's household" might be expected to include a priest or two.

[The Trinity was, of course, not yet a concept when Zechariah was written, or indeed in the 1st century AD (and maybe not until the 3rd century)]
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by MrMacSon »

Those reference are to the Johaninne use of Zech 6:12-13, rather than Philo's, but they are in the same vein.

eta -
SUMMARY: The explicit references to the Scripture (γραϕή) in the Johannine cleansing narrative in 2:22 as well as in the Johannine narrative about the empty tomb in 20:9 were always a perplexing mystery which raised a plethora of scholarly proposals. The article presents an argument in favor of Zech 6:12-13 as a scriptural referent in both these occurrences of γραϕή. The Zechariah prophecy about the future rebuilding of the temple by a Messianic king perfectly dovetails with the Johannine Temple-Christology, which depicts the resurrection of Jesus as the rebuilding of the temple by the Messiah-King.

https://www.academia.edu/1553148/Zechar ... hristology

"If the understanding of Jesus’ resurrection in John 2:19-22 is tantamount to the idea of a royal and Messianic rebuilding of the temple as reflected in Zech 6:12-13, one might wonder whether the same concept and the same scriptural reference might be hidden behind the narrator’s vague remark οὐδέπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραϕὴν ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι (for as yet they did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead) found in John 20:9. The disciples did not know yet the γραϕή which testified that Jesus must be raised, namely that he, the Messiah-King, had to build the new temple (as reflected in Zech 6:12-13) by means of his bodily resurrection or, to put it differently, that Jesus’ resurrection was indeed the (re)building of the (new) temple."

"Zech 6:12-13 is the scriptural prophecy that refers to Messianic rebuilding of the eschatological temple.
In fact, Zechariah is explicitly alluded to in the first part of the cleansing narrative and widely employed in other parts of the
FG [Fourth Gospel: John]. The equally mysterious scriptural referent of γραϕή in John 20:9 may also be identified with Zech 6:12-13.
Many striking similarities between the cleansing narrative in John 2 (and v. 22 in particular) and the paschal narrative in John 20 (especially v. 9) point to such a conclusion. Moreover, the fact that the whole paschal narrative in John 20 is permeated with royal and temple imagery (the latter
intrinsically connected with Eden motifs) may also corroborate the reference to Zechariah’s vision."
Maybe the priest in Zech 6:13 was interpreted or re-interpreted as a disciple, or a 'body' of disciples(?)
User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by cienfuegos »

As GDon continues to contrive ways to make this a confusing issue, it might help to consider this passage from the LXX

Zec 2:10 - 13

10 Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Sion: for, behold, I come, and will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. 11 And many nations shall flee for refuge to the Lord in that day, and they shall be for a people to him, and they shall dwell in the midst of thee: and thou shalt know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to thee. 12 And the Lord shall inherit Juda his portion in the holy land, and he will yet choose Jerusalem. 13 Let all flesh fear before the Lord: for he has risen up from his holy clouds.

Notice here that the Lord says he will dwell in the midst of his chosen people, setting the stage for a belief in God Incanate. Now, notice the next passage:

3:1 And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and the Devil stood on his right hand to resist him. 2 And the Lords said to the Devil,

3 The Lord rebuke thee, O Devil, even the Lord that has chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: behold! is not this as a brand plucked from the fire? 4 Now Jesus was clothed in filthy raiment, and stood before the angel. 5 And the Lord answered and spoke to those who stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy raiment from him: and he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thine iniquities: and clothe ye him with a long robe, 6 and place a pure mitre upon his head. So they placed a pure mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments: and the angel of the Lord stood by. 7 And the angel of the Lord testified to Jesus, saying, 8 Thus saith the Lord Almighty;

If thou wilt walk in my ways, and take heed to my charges, then shalt thou judge my house: and if thou wilt diligently keep my court, then will I give thee men to walk in the midst of these that stand here. 9 Hear now, Jesus the high priest, thou, and thy neighbours that are sitting before thee: for they are diviners, for, behold, I bring forth my servant The Branch. 10 For as for the stone which I have set before the face of Jesus, on the one stone are seven eyes: behold, I am digging a trench, saith the Lord Almighty, and I will search out all the iniquity of that land in one day. 11 In that day, saith the Lord Almighty, ye shall call together every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig-tree.

In both cases, after talking about Jesus, the High Priest, the author refers to the Lord's servant known as the Branch (or Rises). The first time, it is not clear to me that Jesus is The Branch, although it could be because the Lord is not only speaking to Jesus and thus could be presenting to others his chosen servant, the high priest Jesus. The second reference makes it clearer that Jesus is being presented as the Branch.

Philo refers to this character, the Branch, and the name attached to that character is Jesus, the High Priest. Clearly this is also the Jesus, High Priest referred to in Hebrews. It's pretty clear that all around, there was speculation on the character Jesus the High Priest and none of this depends on a Jesus from Nazareth.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Secret Alias »

Funny how when there were knowledgeable, intelligent neutral parties engaged in this discussion all the Carrier mythicists went quiet. It reminds me of Celsus's description of contemporary Christians that they only appealed their message to idiots, shunned conversations with knowledgeable people and accused their detractors of being blinded by worldly ambitions and authorities.

The vehemence on the part of these people is utterly remarkable with respect to this 'Jesus angel' especially given the complete lack of evidence (they forget that even the Christian evidence only mentions a nomen sacrum rather than "Iesous").

Does Philo mention a Jesus angel? No
Does Philo interpret the LXX text the way Carrier suggests? No
Could the LXX be interpreted to suggest Jesus the high priest was the anatole? No

So in light of this it is amazing to see the vehemence on the part of the (alleged) Carrier mythicists. Surely even the most sympathetic followers of Carrier would have to say that the evidence is lacking for anything resembling certainty or even hope. To believe that Philo knew of a Jesus angel requires no less blind ambition of faith than faith in the Virgin Birth
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Bernard Muller »

Philo refers to this character, the Branch, and the name attached to that character is Jesus, the High Priest.
Nope, as explained here http://historical-jesus.info/17.html, and others on this thread. The connection between Philo's Son of God and the Jesus of Zechariah is very problematic and far-fetched, as Doherty himself (diplomatically) declared: """By the way, on Richard Carrier’s Logos as Jesus, I do feel he did stretch things a bit. One can make that link through rather indirect channels, but the difficulties compromise the specific connection he seemed to be trying to make.".
It is also unproven some Jews, before Christianity began, connected Jesus, son of Josedec to Philo's incorporeal being, the eldest Son of God.
It's pretty clear that all around, there was speculation on the character Jesus the High Priest and none of this depends on a Jesus from Nazareth.
Someone reading Philo did not need Zachariah, to see that Philo had the Son of God as the ultimate High Priest, performing a sacrifice of himself for atonement of sins (& even suggesting getting human experience). All of that got eventually tacked on Jesus of Nazareth, probably through the effort of the author of Hebrews, who I take as no other than Apollos of Alexandria, a contemporary of, and from the same city than Philo.

a) "Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made" (The special Laws I, ch. XVI)

b) "... the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being" (Questions and answers on Genesis II)

c) "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 ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XIV)

d) "And even if there be not as yet 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 angel, 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 ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)

e) "And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift ..." (Who is the heir of divine things, ch. XLII)

f) "the most ancient Word of the living God ... he will never take the mitre off from his head, he will never lay aside the kingly diadem, the symbol of an authority which is not absolute, but only that of a viceroy, but which is nevertheless an object of admiration." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

g) "the man [the high priest] who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete [intercessor], his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings..." (On the life of Moses II, ch. XXVI).

h) "Who then is the chief butler of God? The priest who offers libations to him, the truly great high priest, who, having received a draught of everlasting graces, offers himself in return, pouring in an entire libation full of unmixed wine" (On dreams II, ch. XXVII)

i) "For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world [heaven], in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son."(On Dreams I, ch. XXXVII)

j) "For we say the high priest is not a man, but is the word of God ..." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Secret Alias »

The thing these Carrier mythicists have to explain is why - when Philo expresses interest in the name 'man' here and elsewhere with respect to the Logos - why it is 'better' for us to go beyond this mention in Zechariah and go down a rabbit hole chasing after a Jesus angel? For whose benefit is this? Are we still trying to understand Philo or are we trying to connect him to a questionable theory about Christian origins? Is this done in the interest of understanding Philo or a modern atheist agenda?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13928
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Giuseppe »

In Zechariah 6:11-13 the High Priest Joshua is symbolically crowned, and hailed as 'the Branch' (tsemach, a Messianic title derived from Je 23:5 = 33:15; cf. Is 4:2), and it is predicted that he will build the Temple, and bear royal office, supported by a priestly figure. Joshua is thus set up as a type of the coming Messiah, and the prediction of building the Temple is a symbol, probably of the Messiah's creation of a true worshipping community. Jesus' reference to rebuilding the Temple was also figurative, referring primarily to his resurrection, but perhaps also to the creation of his church which was to be accomplished through it. At any rate, if, as it seems likely, an allusion to Zecharia 6:12-13 lies behind the charge of Mark 14:58, it involves a claim to be the promised 'Branch', the Messiah.
(Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to .., R. T. France, p. 100, my bold)

Mark 14:58 :
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply