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

[Giuseppe]

The Andrew's view is proved by the following fact, too:


Not only the Logos. Another guy comes from ANATOLE in Philo.

XV. (64) But an example of the worse kind of dawning is afforded by the words used by the man who was willing "to curse the people who were blessed by God."{19}{#nu 23:7.} For he also is represented as dwelling in the east. And this dawning, having the same name as the former one, has nevertheless an opposite nature to it, and is continually at war with it. (65) For Balaam says, "Balak sent for me out of Mesopotamia, from the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me the people whom God doth not curse." But the name of Balak, being interpreted means, "void of sense;" a very felicitous name. For how can it be otherwise than shocking to hope to deceive the living God, and to turn aside his most enduring and firmly established counsels by the sophistical devices of men? (66) On this account he is represented as living in Mesopotamia, for his mind is overwhelmed as in the middle of the depth of the river, and is not able to emerge and to swim away. And this condition is the dawning of folly and the setting of sound reason.

Philo is saying that Balaam, contra factum that he comes from ANATOLE (allegory of the light of Logos per Genesis etc), is really an anti-messianic figure.

[MrMacSon]

Philo's interpretation of the passage meaning a future redeemer might not be so crazy.

I am attracted by the solution of Van der Woude, who argues that (Dim DTD (contrary to tz»n ^JJ D'to) does not necessarily mean 'to place on the head', that is, 'to crown', but rather, by analogy with the Akkadian expression sakanu ina resi, 'to place at someone's disposal', 'to entrust'.99 This means that the two figures in Zech. 6:13, the Sprout and a priest next to his throne, are future persons https://books.google.ca/books?id=yHTu2E ... 22&f=false

That Joshua the high priest will serve the future redeemer may well be what Andrew was hinting at when he says that he suspects the passage we have is corrupt.

IMVHO the original had both Zerubbabel and Joshua being crowned (one crown each).

Andrew Criddle

Andrew, but is this your view? That the original had both Zerubbabel and Joshua being crowned (one crown each) ?

Because who made the *corruption* can have in mind only a goal: make only Jesus son of Josedec the unique messianic king-priest.

Although a joint Davidic and priestly rule is depicted at the end of chapter 4, chapter 6 sees Joshua as the lone figure crowned by the Lord. A transition from royal to priestly rule has been effected.

http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2012/01/ ... on-of-man/

If this was the case (a *corruption* of Zech from 2 crown to 1 crown), by time of Philo, the common reading would be surely Joshua=ANATOLE.

Is corruption the right word?

Aren't we talking about an interpretation or an intended interpretation?

or a theological elaboration?

[Giuseppe]

Is corruption the right word?

Aren't we talking about an interpretation or an intended interpretation?

or a theological elaboration?

From what I understand, it seems that Andrew thinks to a possible corruption of the original text of Zechariah.

[outhouse]

Can we admit yet that Carrier is grasping at straws here?

He does that all the time about his mythical Jesus, as also other mythicists do. They have to: they have nothing at their disposal stronger than straws in order to support their theories.

Cordially, Bernard

I think the same thing about the historicists.

Yes but it takes a certain level of education to fully understand the overall picture.

Sort of makes your opinions non sequitur towards the topic.

[Ben C. Smith]

Is corruption the right word?

Aren't we talking about an interpretation or an intended interpretation?

or a theological elaboration?

I believe Andrew is suggesting that the actual text once had two crowns, whereas the current text does not, in which case "corruption" is indeed the correct word. (Any change in a copy of a text compared to the original whence the copy is made may be called a corruption, whether deliberate or accidental.)

[Giuseppe]

For Secret Alias:

I find very absurd that the major expert of Jewish angels in the ancient world, Philo of Alexandria, didn't know nothing about an angel Jesus (beyond if you put under the minimal historicism or the minimal mythicism).

This is a major problem for the mythicism, since that the unique alternative would be that ''Peter'' was the first to hallucinate an angel and call him ''Jesus'' totally ex novo.

But even under the minimal historicity, why didn't Philo know nothing about a man became an angel named Jesus? Did no christian go to Alexandria?

Your 'solution seems to me a giant possibiliter fallacy:

that the angel was named Isha or similia...

... and later he was named Jesus (by historicist Christians).

You should assume a lot of hypothesis ad hoc, as the interpolation in the pauliana of any occurrence of Jesus...

[GakuseiDon]

The Andrew's view is proved by the following fact, too:

Not only the Logos. Another guy comes from ANATOLE in Philo.

XV. (64) But an example of the worse kind of dawning is afforded by the words used by the man who was willing "to curse the people who were blessed by God."{19}{#nu 23:7.} For he also is represented as dwelling in the east. And this dawning, having the same name as the former one, has nevertheless an opposite nature to it, and is continually at war with it. (65) For Balaam says, "Balak sent for me out of Mesopotamia, from the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me the people whom God doth not curse." But the name of Balak, being interpreted means, "void of sense;" a very felicitous name. For how can it be otherwise than shocking to hope to deceive the living God, and to turn aside his most enduring and firmly established counsels by the sophistical devices of men? (66) On this account he is represented as living in Mesopotamia, for his mind is overwhelmed as in the middle of the depth of the river, and is not able to emerge and to swim away. And this condition is the dawning of folly and the setting of sound reason.

Philo is saying that Balaam, contra factum that he comes from ANATOLE (allegory of the light of Logos per Genesis etc), is really an anti-messianic figure.

No he doesn't. Balaam is nowhere portrayed as an "anti-messianic figure". Keep in mind that the overall theme of Philo's "On the Confusion of Tongues" is providing the explanation for the allegory behind the story in Genesis whereby the building of the tower of Babel led to the confusion of languages. His explanation has no direct bearing on Messiah figures, and certainly nothing to do with a Joshua figure.

From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

Philo starts with:

• We might next proceed to consider, and that in no slight or cursory manner, the philosophical account which Moses gives us of the confusion of languages; for he speaks in the following manner: "And all the earth had one pronunciation, and there was one language among all men. And it came to pass, as they were moving from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. And one man said to his neighbour, Come, let us make bricks, and let us burn them with fire; and they had bricks for stone, and asphalt for mortar.

Philo then explains what Moses meant by "from the east", "found a plain", "make bricks", by pulling out bits of pieces from everywhere, esp the Old Testament (Philo also cites Homer in the work).

With regards to the "from the east" part:

• XIV. (60) 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.

Philo then goes on to explain the "twofold kind of dawning in the soul", the better sort, and the worse. Note that the dawn comes from the east!

The better sort coming from the east is the Platonic Adam, who is the firstborn son of God, made in the image of God and is the archetypal pattern. Philo mines the OT and finds Zech 6:12:

• 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.

For the worse sort, Philo mines the OT and finds Num 23:7, which refers to Balaam (the name means "unstable" according to Philo) coming from the mountains of the east:

• XV. (64) But an example of the worse kind of dawning is afforded by the words used by the man who was willing "to curse the people who were blessed by God."{19}{#nu 23:7.} For he also is represented as dwelling in the east. And this dawning, having the same name as the former one, has nevertheless an opposite nature to it, and is continually at war with it. (65) For Balaam says, "Balak sent for me out of Mesopotamia, from the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me the people whom God doth not curse."

Philo then explains what "found a plain" means:

• XVII. (75) And take notice that Moses does not say that they came unto a plain in which they remain, but that they "found" one, having searched around in every direction, and having considered what might be the most suitable region for folly; for in reality every foolish man does not take from another for himself, but he seeks for and finds evils, not being content only with those which wicked nature proceeds towards of its own accord, but also adding thereto such perfect skill in evil as arises from constant practice in contriving wrong.

Philo then explains the significance of "making bricks":

• XVIII. (83) But the wicked man, desiring to exhibit the fact that identity of language, and the sameness of dialect does not consist more in names and common words than in his participation in iniquitous actions, begins to build a city and a tower as a citadel for sovereign wickedness; and he invites all his fellow revellers to partake in his enterprise, preparing beforehand abundance of suitable materials. (84) For, "Come," says he, "let us make bricks, and let us bake them in the fire," an expression equivalent to, Now we have all the parts of the soul mingled together and in a state of confusion, so that there is no species whatever the form of which is evident to be seen.

And so on.

As I wrote above, none of this has any direct bearing on the Logos and Messiah figures, and certainly nothing to do with a Joshua figure who was considered the image of God and the Logos. All Carrier can claim is that some pre-Christians interpreted Philo as doing so, in the exact way that Carrier wants. But there is no evidence for this. To me it's just bad apologetics, in the same way that apologists try to explain away inconsistencies in the Bible.

[iskander]

No he doesn't. Balaam is nowhere portrayed as an "anti-messianic figure". Keep in mind that the overall theme of Philo's "On the Confusion of Tongues" is providing the explanation for the allegory behind the story in Genesis whereby the building of the tower of Babel led to the confusion of languages. His explanation has no direct bearing on Messiah figures, and certainly nothing to do with a Joshua figure.

From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

Philo starts with:

• We might next proceed to consider, and that in no slight or cursory manner, the philosophical account which Moses gives us of the confusion of languages; for he speaks in the following manner: "And all the earth had one pronunciation, and there was one language among all men. And it came to pass, as they were moving from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. And one man said to his neighbour, Come, let us make bricks, and let us burn them with fire; and they had bricks for stone, and asphalt for mortar.

Philo then explains what Moses meant by "from the east", "found a plain", "make bricks", by pulling out bits of pieces from everywhere, esp the Old Testament (Philo also cites Homer in the work).

With regards to the "from the east" part:

• XIV. (60) 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.

Philo then goes on to explain the "twofold kind of dawning in the soul", the better sort, and the worse. Note that the dawn comes from the east!

The better sort coming from the east is the Platonic Adam, who is the firstborn son of God, made in the image of God and is the archetypal pattern. Philo mines the OT and finds Zech 6:12:

• 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.

For the worse sort, Philo mines the OT and finds Num 23:7, which refers to Balaam (the name means "unstable" according to Philo) coming from the mountains of the east:

• XV. (64) But an example of the worse kind of dawning is afforded by the words used by the man who was willing "to curse the people who were blessed by God."{19}{#nu 23:7.} For he also is represented as dwelling in the east. And this dawning, having the same name as the former one, has nevertheless an opposite nature to it, and is continually at war with it. (65) For Balaam says, "Balak sent for me out of Mesopotamia, from the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me the people whom God doth not curse."

Philo then explains what "found a plain" means:

• XVII. (75) And take notice that Moses does not say that they came unto a plain in which they remain, but that they "found" one, having searched around in every direction, and having considered what might be the most suitable region for folly; for in reality every foolish man does not take from another for himself, but he seeks for and finds evils, not being content only with those which wicked nature proceeds towards of its own accord, but also adding thereto such perfect skill in evil as arises from constant practice in contriving wrong.

Philo then explains the significance of "making bricks":

• XVIII. (83) But the wicked man, desiring to exhibit the fact that identity of language, and the sameness of dialect does not consist more in names and common words than in his participation in iniquitous actions, begins to build a city and a tower as a citadel for sovereign wickedness; and he invites all his fellow revellers to partake in his enterprise, preparing beforehand abundance of suitable materials. (84) For, "Come," says he, "let us make bricks, and let us bake them in the fire," an expression equivalent to, Now we have all the parts of the soul mingled together and in a state of confusion, so that there is no species whatever the form of which is evident to be seen.

And so on.

As I wrote above, none of this has any direct bearing on the Logos and Messiah figures, and certainly nothing to do with a Joshua figure who was considered the image of God and the Logos. All Carrier can claim is that some pre-Christians interpreted Philo as doing so, in the exact way that Carrier wants. But there is no evidence for this. To me it's just bad apologetics, in the same way that apologists try to explain away inconsistencies in the Bible.

A Perfect reading.

"Philo then goes on to explain the "twofold kind of dawning in the soul", the better sort, and the worse. Note that the dawn comes from the east!"

Philo identifies the better sort with Israel who is God's first born, and the worse sort with the enemy that curses the one God has blessed ;the one blessed by God is Israel who is a light to the nations.

Exodus 4:22
22Then you shall say to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son.

Isaiah 49:6
6 he says,
‘It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’

[Giuseppe]

@GakuseiDon

As I wrote above, none of this has any direct bearing on the Logos and Messiah figures, and certainly nothing to do with a Joshua figure who was considered the image of God and the Logos. All Carrier can claim is that some pre-Christians interpreted Philo as doing so, in the exact way that Carrier wants. But there is no evidence for this. To me it's just bad apologetics, in the same way that apologists try to explain away inconsistencies in the Bible.

Even if I like the Andrew's argument, I find an academic book that contradicts explicitly what you claim, and precisely against this your point:

No he doesn't. Balaam is nowhere portrayed as an "anti-messianic figure". Keep in mind that the overall theme of Philo's "On the Confusion of Tongues" is providing the explanation for the allegory behind the story in Genesis whereby the building of the tower of Babel led to the confusion of languages. His explanation has no direct bearing on Messiah figures, and certainly nothing to do with a Joshua figure.

I read:

Immediately following his best example of rising, the man whom God named Rising, Philo introduces Balaam, of the worst kind of rising, whom Balak sent for apò anatolòn and who lived pros anatolàis. Balaam is here described as someone who wished to curse one whom God praised:

(Conf. 64-65a) ...

These are the only two personal examples of antithetical risings here: Philo appears to have set the man of Zech 6.12 and Balaam in opposition here as type and antitype.
Even though Philo does not make the connection explicit, the eschatological ruler of the nations from Num 24.7, who is the “incontestably messianic” man in Num 24:17, may be identified with the man named Rising, also a messianic figure. In this sense, J. de Savignac rightly contends that Philo's exposition of Zec 6:12 in De confusione linguarum 62-64 is an “assimilation of the Logos and Messiah.”
A comparison of Philo's citations of Num 24.7 (Mos. 1.290 and Praem. 95) and Zech 6.12 (Conf. 62-63), assuming that Philo also knew Num 24.17, reveals that the key overlapping words are anthropos and anatéllo:

...

Since these divine promises of the coming messianic man had been preserved by Moses or “one of his companions” (Conf. 62), Philo confidently expected their fulfillment. The only two biblical texts wich Philo reads in a purportedly messianic way are Zech 6.12 and Num 24.7 (and by extension, Num 24.17). Philo is certainly to be included with the Qumran scribes and other early exegetes of the scriptures, whose messianic exegesis merged the figures in Num 24 and Zech 6.12.
In sum, a combined messianic reading of the man from the Balaam oracles in Num 24.7, 17 and the man from Zech 6.12 has been confirmed as early as the first century C.E. Zecharia 6.12 is therefore an inextricable component of the Branch-ANATOLE-man-star-sceptre complex of messianic terminology around the turn of the common era. It is thus possible that Matthew could have encountered some form of this conflated messianic figure - the man of Num 24 and Zech 6.12 - in his traditional material. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the First Gospel has built on this coalesced messianic imagery in its Infancy Narrative.

(free extract from The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew, Charlene McAfee Moss, p. 34-36)

If you read the following pages, the author says that the Magi episode in Matthew uses Balaam as midrashical source (coming both from ANATOLE). From what I understand in a superficial way, the midrash would be along these lines:
1) Balaam cannot curse who he wants.
2) The magi cannot bless the Son because Herod prevents them.

What I find more important is the link ANATOLE=branch.

When Matthew says that he ''will be called NAZARENE according to scriptures'', these ''scriptures'' can be just Zech 6:12 : what the author of the book calls ''Branch-ANATOLE-man-star-sceptre complex of messianic terminology around the turn of the common era''.

1) The MAN comes from ANATOLE
2) ANATOLE is a messianic title, meaning branch, as neser the radix of Nazarene.
3) therefore: Jesus comes from NAZARET.

As I said above, my question is: as collateral effect of the exegesis of Philo et al. of Zech 6:12 as a prophetical text (the great Moses, via one of his companions, was the PROPHET in question), can the same name of the Rising in Zech. (i.e.: Joshua son ofJosedec', Joshua being a ''name of the noblest states'', for Philo), be given to the Messiah?

[Giuseppe]

What I find more important is the link ANATOLE=branch.

When Matthew says that he ''will be called NAZARENE according to scriptures'', these ''scriptures'' can be just Zech 6:12 : what the author of the book calls ''Branch-ANATOLE-man-star-sceptre complex of messianic terminology around the turn of the common era''.

1) The MAN comes from ANATOLE
2) ANATOLE is a messianic title, meaning branch, as neser the radix of Nazarene.
3) therefore: Jesus comes from NAZARET.

Please read these words of the book:

Such an interpretive stance, in which the star-sceptre-man became identified with the Branch-ANATOLE-man, the expected king-messiah, was already evident in some Jewish traditions, and its association continued into the Targums and in at least one rabbinic circle was applied to a named individual, Bar Kochba. Gilles Dorival, La Bible d'Alexandrie: Les Nombres (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1994), 452, recognizes that Matt 2 holds, in common with early Jewish writers, rabbis and church fathers, the interpretation of the star-symbolism for Davidic royalty and the sceptre for the messianic era. Of Num 24.17, he writes with respect to Matt 2.2 and Rev 22.16, that the word for star was exchanged and that the verb “to rise” became the substantive “rising” in the magi-Herod text.

(ibid., p.36, note 82)

Matthew 2.3-6
Certain features derived from reading Num 24.7, 17 in light of Zech 6.12 may help to undestand how Matthew has construed the magi narrative; for example, the magoi apo anatolòn (Matth 2.1), looking for a king whose star they had seen en te anatole (Matt. 2.2), reflects the exegetical processes already in place in the first century C.E. The presence of Gentile seers who interpret correctly the prophetic sign of the newbord king of the Jews bears some similarity with the Gentile magus who was possessed by the divine spirit to utter the star-prophecy of this king.

The magus Balaam came from the East, speaking words that frustrated King Balak in his effort to destroy his enemy; the magi, who also came also from the East, frustrated King Herod in his effort to destroy his enemy.80 At the end of the story, Matt 2.12 reports that the magi, having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, left for their region by another route. Num 24.25 concludes the Balaam episode with his departure for his own place.
[the Note 80: See Brown, Birth, 193-195; in summary, he writes, “Thus, beside similarities between the magus Balaam and the Matthean magi in title, origin, and role, we have the similarity whereby Balaam foretold that a star symbolizing the Messiah would rise (LXX) and Matthew's magi saw the star symbolizing the Messiah (2:4) at its rising.” Davies & Allison I, 230-236, however, are uncertain whether to interpret en te anatole messianically; they appear not to make the connection between Zech 6:12 and the Matthean Infancy Narrative.]

The tradition that the arrival of the Messiah (“king of the Jews”, Matth 2.2-4) might be heralded by his rising star is implicit in Matthew's narrative world: in Jerusalem the priestly hierarchy, the scribes, and even Herod, know this much. The messianic discussion provoked by the magi's account of the star proceed without further explanation, including the interpretive leap Herod makes (from “newbord king of the Jews”) when he asks where the Messiah is to be born:

(p. 36)

(Matt 2:23) And he went and settled in a city called Nazareth, that the word through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazarene”.

This text is widely acknowledged to be some sort of word-play involving Jesus' hometown of Nazaret. Nazaret, variously spelled Nazara, Nazaret, and Nazareth, does not appear in the OT; it is mentioned only in the Gospels and Acts. Jesus is identified as the prophet from Nazareth in Matt 21.11. The significance of Nazaret/Nazraene in Matt 2.23 must reach beyond mere geography. Scholars generally interpret it either (1) as a reference to Jesus as one set apart to God as a Nazirite (...), or (2) as a reference to the messianic imagery of the Davidic Branch, Naser (...).
On the one hand, from the biblical texts themselves, there are no compelling reasons to adopt a Nazirite interpretation. First, nowhere in the LXX is Nazirite rendered Nazoraios. Second, a Nazirite explanation simply does not fit the Matthean Infancy narrative in its own context, nor is it supported by the picture of Jesus elsewhere in Matthew; Matt 11 presents a notable example:

...
(Matt 11:18-19) For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

On the other hand, Davidic Branch - ANATOLE connections, which complement the Davidic messianic themes prominent in Matthew's first chapter, have also been discerned in Matthew's second chapter. Furthemore, the prophetic plurality of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah, from which the unified concept of ... and ..., as interchangeable Messianic Branch terms, may also account for the unusual fulfillment formula in Matt 2:23, in which the indirect speech citation, oti Nazoraios klethesetai, fulfills to reten dia ton propheton.

(p. 39, my red)

In conclusion: there is more of a link between Mattean messianic description of Jesus and ANATOLE of Zech 6:12. Therefore there is evidence of earliest Christians that make use of ANATOLE in a messianic frame.
It rises the right question: the name 'Joshua' in both the texts is only a mere coincidence?