Carrier on the sources of the Christian Gospel

[Kapyong]

Greetings all,

Regarding the source of the Christian gospel, Carrier has this to say :

"If this 'Jesus Rising' were connected to the dying servant who atones for all sins in Isaiah (and perhaps also with Daniel or 11 Q13) , it would be easy to read out of this almost the entire core Christian gospel.

There are four sources mentioned here :
* Jesus Rising (or Jesus the Branch) from Zech 3 and 6.
* The dying servant of Isaiah 52,53
* Daniel
* 11Q13

Jesus Rising in Zech 3 & 6

Firstly, 'Jesus Rising' is shown as 'Jesus the Branch' in all translations AFAICT, but Carrier uses 'Rises'. Vridar had a translation containing "the Orient (i.e. Rises)" A comment from Vridar explains why 'Rises' is preferable :

[Neil, Could you comment further on interpreting “branch” in Zec 6:12 as “rises”?]
Sure. This is from footnote 35 in Simon Gathercole’s article:
“Despite its presence in a number of translations, it was shown at the beginning of the 20th c. by Driver that ‘branch’ is an untenable translation for צֶמַח [zemah] because צֶמַח always comes up out of the ground rather than from an already existing trunk or stalk. See S. R. Driver, “The Minor Prophets: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi” (Edinburgh: Jack, 1906), pp. 197-8. More recently, however, W. Rose has shown that Driver’s alternative, ‘shoot’, is also difficult to accept. Rather, Rose shows convincingly that the meaning is ‘growth’, either in the sense of actual produce, or of the phenomenon of growing. This latter is more likely in Zechariah 3 and 6, and also fits well with the Greek ἀνατολή, which naturally means ‘rising’. Rose’s argument centres on the fact that the most common cluster in the Old Testament is ‘the צֶמַח, of the earth/field/ground’. Other words for ‘branch’ or ‘shoot’ do not come in similar contexts to צֶמַח, here; rather the kind of language which does is that of grass, trees, plants, herbs, and bushes. See W. H. Rose, “Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period” (JSOTSuppS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 91-120.”
What is interesting is Luke’s taking the “rises” of Zechariah to apply to a rising of (pre-existent) day-star or sun, while Zechariah speaks of a “rising” from the ground below.

Here are the quotes from Zechariah about the high priest Jesus also called 'Rises', with 'Jesus' and 'Rises' in the key places :

Zech. 3:8 - "Hear now, O Jesus the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant Rises."

Zech. 6:11-12 - "And thou shalt take gold and silver: and shalt make crowns, and thou shalt set them on the head of Jesus the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. And thou shalt speak to him, saying: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying: behold a man, Rises is his name : and under him shall he spring up, and shall build a temple to the Lord."

Carrier notes that Jehozadak means 'Jahveh the righteous' so 'son of Jehozadak' means 'son of Jahveh the righteous' i.e. the son-of-God.

Luke also knows about Ris[es] :

Luke 1:78-79 - "Through the tender mercies of our God, In which the Rising from on high did look upon us, To give light to those sitting in darkness and death-shade, To guide our feet to a way of peace."

Philo calls this man 'East' (as in where the sun rises) :

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!” 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 ... (On the Confusion of Tongues, Book 14:62, 63)

So, here are the key characteristics of Jesus Rises :
* confronted by Satan in God's abode
* there crowned king
* given all of God's authority
* high priest
* will build up 'God's house'
* God's servant
* through him all sin of the world will be cleansed 'in a single day'

Isaiah and Daniel and 11Q13

This Jesus Rises shares characteristics with the 'servant' of Isaiah 52,53 where it's his death that cleanses the world of sin. And Jews may have been linking this dying 'servant' to the dying 'Christ' killed in Daniel 9 whose death is also said to correspond closely with a conslusive 'end of sin' in the world. Both figures (Daniel and 11Q13) were linked to an expected 'atonement in a single day'.

11Q13 (AKA 11QMelch) has the following text according to wiki :

— ...[And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61.l). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will cast] their 5 [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement [Ps 82:1]. ... And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial.

Connecting the dots

If all of these were connected, then one would have all the following pieces :

* a celestial being named Jesus Christ Rising
* a high priest of God
* in opposition to Satan
* who is wrongly executed even though innocent
* and who dies to atone for all sins
* is buried and subsequently 'raised'
* exalted to the highest station in heaven
* appointed king with supreme heavenly power by God
* and who will then build God's house.

That's the core of Christianity from just connecting three (or four) passages.

Carrier says of this -
"Such a coincidence cannot be ignored; it must be included in our background knowledge."


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Here is more detail on the dying messiah connection to Jesus.

Element 5 : Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed, rather than be immediately victorious, and this would mark the key point of a timetable guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter.

To this end Carrier cites the Talmud b. Sanhedrin 98b and 93b and b. Sukkah 52 about how the messiah is the suffering servant who dies in Isaiah 53, and this messiah will endure great suffering before his death.

" The Messiah — as it is written, And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge of the fear of the Lord. And shall make him of quick understanding [wa-hariho] in the fear of the Lord.12 R. Alexandri said: This teaches that he loaded him with good deeds and suffering as a mill [is laden]."

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_93.html

" What is his [the Messiah's] name? ... The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted "

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_98.html
The italics being a quote from Isaiah 53:4.

The Talmud also has the slaying of a dying-and-rising Messiah the son of Joseph who is 'thrust through' (pierced)

"It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; ... But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to Him, ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask of Thee only the gift of life’.’As to life’, He would answer him, ‘Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said, He asked life of thee, thou gavest it him, [even length of days for ever and ever]"

http://juchre.org/talmud/sukkah/sukkah3.htm#52a

Carrier notes that of course the Talmud is a late source, but he contends that this element is early because "only when Jews had no idea what Christians would do with this connection would they themselves have promoted it". He argues there is no way later Jews would have made up a Messiah son of Joseph who dies and rises again, nor proclaim that Messiah to be the servant of Isaiah 53 and admit that Isaiah had predicted that this Messiah would die and be resurrected. The Talmud makes no mention of Christianity and shows no sign of being a response to it. So it must be an early tradition.

From all this we have the following details about the Messiah :
* he is the suffering servant of Isaiah 52,53
* he is the son of Joseph
* he dies by being thrust through (pierced)
* he is given the gift of life again

From Isaiah's suffering servant we get more details :
* He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
* He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities.
* He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bore the sin of many,

All of which can easily apply to Jesus, indeed some are now seen specifically as prophecies of Jesus.

The Dying Messiah

There is also the 7th century The Apocalypse of Zerubbabel which discusses the dying messiah theme and has two Messiahs - one son of David and another son of Joseph. One dies, the other triumphs - all you have to do is combine the two to have Jesus.

The Book of Daniel also has this theme of the dying messiah :

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off"

The Wisdom of Solomon has a son-of-God who is despised, killed, resurrected and crowned as a king in heaven -

" For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected."

Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness before the face of such as have afflicted him, and made no account of his labours. When they see it, they shall be troubled with terrible fear, and shall be amazed at the strangeness of his salvation, so far beyond all that they looked for. And they repenting and groaning for anguish of spirit shall say within themselves, This was he, whom we had sometimes in derision, and a proverb of reproach: We fools accounted his life madness, and his end to be without honour: How is he numbered among the children of God, and his lot is among the saints!

As mentioned above, 11Q13 has a specific dying messiah theme which connects the 'messenger' of Isaiah 52,53 who is linked in Isaiah with a 'servant' who will die to atone for everyone's sins.


Conclusion

We can see from this that the dying messiah motif was known in Christian times and could esaily have served a s source for the gospel.
We can see various characteristics of the dying messiah in Jesus - the son-of-God, the son-of-Joseph, dying and resurrected, punished for our sins, but then exalted to heaven.


Kapyong

[Blood]

Sanhedrin 98b wrote:
" What is his [the Messiah's] name? ... The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted "

The Messiah is named "The Leper Scholar"?

[yalla]

Very interesting - thanks - I will read and re-read slowly.

[Ulan]

Sanhedrin 98b wrote:
" What is his [the Messiah's] name? ... The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted "

The Messiah is named "The Leper Scholar"?

There we are again with "Jesus = Paul"

[spin]

Greetings all,

Regarding the source of the Christian gospel, Carrier has this to say :

"If this 'Jesus Rising' were connected to the dying servant who atones for all sins in Isaiah (and perhaps also with Daniel or 11 Q13) , it would be easy to read out of this almost the entire core Christian gospel.

There are four sources mentioned here :
* Jesus Rising (or Jesus the Branch) from Zech 3 and 6.
* The dying servant of Isaiah 52,53
* Daniel
* 11Q13

Jesus Rising in Zech 3 & 6

Firstly, 'Jesus Rising' is shown as 'Jesus the Branch' in all translations AFAICT, but Carrier uses 'Rises'.

Somewhat unjustifiably. The discussion from Rose cited by Neil Godfrey is spot on. The literal use of צמח is quite consistent. Rose indicates that it means "growth", as in what plants and hair provide. This is Rose's summary of verb and noun:

"A structural approach to the Hebrew noun צמח and its use in the Old Testament suggests the meaning of this word is neither 'branch' nor 'shoot/sprout', as is commonly thought, but (a) 'vegetation, greenery, growth', and (b) 'growth' (as a process). Similarly, the verb צמח means 'to grow'."

That understanding of the word(s) makes the following, if based on the Hebrew, extremely unlikely:

Vridar had a translation containing "the Orient (i.e. Rises)" A comment from Vridar explains why 'Rises' is preferable :

[Neil, Could you comment further on interpreting “branch” in Zec 6:12 as “rises”?]
Sure. This is from footnote 35 in Simon Gathercole’s article:
“Despite its presence in a number of translations, it was shown at the beginning of the 20th c. by Driver that ‘branch’ is an untenable translation for צֶמַח [zemah] because צֶמַח always comes up out of the ground rather than from an already existing trunk or stalk. See S. R. Driver, “The Minor Prophets: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi” (Edinburgh: Jack, 1906), pp. 197-8. More recently, however, W. Rose has shown that Driver’s alternative, ‘shoot’, is also difficult to accept. Rather, Rose shows convincingly that the meaning is ‘growth’, either in the sense of actual produce, or of the phenomenon of growing. This latter is more likely in Zechariah 3 and 6, and also fits well with the Greek ἀνατολή, which naturally means ‘rising’.

Rose gives no indication in the passage that Neil cites, so I must assume that it is something he brings to Rose's discussion. The shift from Hebrew to Greek brings collocations in ανατολη that are not found in צמח. Here is the Liddell & Scott on the Greek verb ανατελλω. You'll see specifically that one of its collocations is in the growth of hair, teeth and plants, ie the significance of צמח as delineated by Rose. The Greek verb also has other collocations not found in the Hebrew. This shift to the Greek functionally nullifies the whole discussion of the Hebrew terminology, other than to show that this "shoot" stuff is misleading. The dictionary entry for ανατολη has a number of meanings including: 1) "rising above the horizon" (as heavenly bodies do in the east), 2) where the rising happens, ie the east, and 3) the growth of hair. There doesn't seem to be any generic sense of "rising".

Rose’s argument centres on the fact that the most common cluster in the Old Testament is ‘the צֶמַח, of the earth/field/ground’. Other words for ‘branch’ or ‘shoot’ do not come in similar contexts to צֶמַח, here; rather the kind of language which does is that of grass, trees, plants, herbs, and bushes. See W. H. Rose, “Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period” (JSOTSuppS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 91-120.”
What is interesting is Luke’s taking the “rises” of Zechariah to apply to a rising of (pre-existent) day-star or sun, while Zechariah speaks of a “rising” from the ground below.

I gather the Lucan reference is 1:78 and its relation to Zechariah seems only to be that the same noun is found in both. There is little in common in subject or usage.

Here are the quotes from Zechariah about the high priest Jesus also called 'Rises', with 'Jesus' and 'Rises' in the key places :

Zech. 3:8 - "Hear now, O Jesus the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant Rises."

Zech. 6:11-12 - "And thou shalt take gold and silver: and shalt make crowns, and thou shalt set them on the head of Jesus the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. And thou shalt speak to him, saying: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying: behold a man, Rises is his name : and under him shall he spring up, and shall build a temple to the Lord."

In each instance, it would be wrong in Hebrew and misleading Greek.

Carrier notes that Jehozadak means 'Jahveh the righteous' so 'son of Jehozadak' means 'son of Jahveh the righteous' i.e. the son-of-God.

Sorry, no it doesn't. That's like saying "'son of Godfrey' means 'son of the atheist'". You do not translate names, especially when the literal understanding, "son of [person name]", is so straightforward.

Luke also knows about Ris[es] :

Luke 1:78-79 - "Through the tender mercies of our God, In which the Rising from on high did look upon us, To give light to those sitting in darkness and death-shade, To guide our feet to a way of peace."

Philo calls this man 'East' (as in where the sun rises) :

(The word is ανατολη.)

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!” 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 ... (On the Confusion of Tongues, Book 14:62, 63)

I don't really see how this passage from Philo is helpful to your discourse. He shows in #63 his intended metaphorical usage of a father raising up his son. Philo is waylaying Zechariah 3:8 for his own Platonic purposes. And here's a more recent translation:

For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of 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.

The rest of the o.p. changes tack into other materials....

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

That understanding of the word(s) makes the following, if based on the Hebrew, extremely unlikely:

[Neil, Could you comment further on interpreting “branch” in Zec 6:12 as “rises”?]
This latter is more likely in Zechariah 3 and 6, and also fits well with the Greek ἀνατολή, which naturally means ‘rising’.

The dictionary entry for ανατολη has a number of meanings including: 1) "rising above the horizon" (as heavenly bodies do in the east), 2) where the rising happens, ie the east, and 3) the growth of hair. There doesn't seem to be any generic sense of "rising".

Interesting stuff, thanks to both.

In the LXX, the word is predominantly used with the meaning east or eastward (often together with north, south, west)

[Kapyong]

Greetings all,

Thanks for your detailed post there spin

Somewhat unjustifiably. The discussion from Rose cited by Neil Godfrey is spot on. The literal use of צמח is quite consistent. Rose indicates that it means "growth", as in what plants and hair provide. This is Rose's summary of verb and noun:

"A structural approach to the Hebrew noun צמח and its use in the Old Testament suggests the meaning of this word is neither 'branch' nor 'shoot/sprout', as is commonly thought, but (a) 'vegetation, greenery, growth', and (b) 'growth' (as a process). Similarly, the verb צמח means 'to grow'."

Seems pretty clear. In which case the name should be 'Jesus Grows' or 'Jesus Growing'.

I gather the Lucan reference is 1:78 and its relation to Zechariah seems only to be that the same noun is found in both. There is little in common in subject or usage.

Indeed, there is actually little in common there. I thought I'd quote it as it gets a mention in the Vridar comment.

I don't really see how this passage from Philo is helpful to your discourse.

Both Carrier and Vridar have it, so I thought it would be useful reference here.


Kapyong

[MattMorales]

I'm quite convinced that Carrier is misusing Philo in grievous fashion and am preparing a blog post addressing this, which I hope to finish soon. I will say this for now: What I find most objectionable is Carrier's argument that Paul did not use Philo in forming his Celestial Jesus, but rather that both Philo and Paul referred independently to this otherwise unattested pre-Christian angelic being. There's just no evidence. Maybe if Paul had misread Philo the same way Carrier has, a case could be made for this "Jesus Rising," but we can't even go that far.

[Leucius Charinus]

That's the core of Christianity from just connecting three (or four) passages. Carrier says of this - "Such a coincidence cannot be ignored; it must be included in our background knowledge."

Thanks for the heads up Kapyong and ...


IDK.