Carrier on the sources of the Christian Gospel

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

Firstly, I note you use the translation 'Rises' (or 'Rising' or 'Dawn') for the Branch. You might like to take account of what spin has said about W. Rose's analysis of this word leading to the conclusion it should be 'Grows' or 'Growing'

Does that make a difference in favor of Carrier? If yes, explain.
We will never know what Zechariah meant exactly by the initial Hebrew word. A verb for the name of entity, either earthly or heavenly being, is very strange from the get go. Anyway Philo & the LXX use the same Greek word.

Bernard Muller wrote:
So where is "Jesus" in all that? Nowhere to be seen in the quote."

I think that's a bit rough on Carrier - there is no Jesus to be found in Philo, everyone knows that. But there is one to be found in Zechariah, and Philo is clearly pointing to that by quoting the phrase he did.

But this is exactly what Carrier said in his debate with Goodacre. Read again the first part of my blog post http://historical-jesus.info/17.html. Extract:
“We do have a reference to a pre-existent being named Jesus who was the first born son of God, who was the high priest of the celestial temple, just like Hebrews explains, and was also called the logos, the word of God, and this is in Philo… Philo refers to this deity several times, this - deity's perhaps the wrong word, he's an archangel in Philo's vocabulary - who’s named Jesus.”

And I cannot accept Philo was pointing to Zechariah, which is what I explained also on my blog post. On this matter, it appears instead he did the opposite.

Thirdly, you say :
Bernard Muller wrote:

"My first argument: How could Zechariah be considered a companion of Moses, who allegedly lived almost a millenium before the prophet?

But isn't your argument there with Philo, not Carrier?

Well, Carrier links "Rises/Grows" with the one of Zechariah even if Philo avoided to say he read the name from a prophet's writing (instead he claimed he heard it as something uttered from a companion of Moses). So that's an argument against Carrier. Philo is honest (or clever) by not linking the word with Zechariah. From my blog post:
"My second argument: Philo said he heard of the saying, and not claiming he read it from the OT prophetic writings. However Philo might have plucked the "the man named Rises" from Zechariah 6 but he did not want to admit it, therefore avoiding "the man named Rises" to be associated with its context in 'Zechariah' (because no man called "Rises" is said to have rebuilt the temple in the Jewish scriptures).
That allowed Philo to apply the name ("novel appellation") to God's incorporeal firstborn."

Anyway the phrase 'companion of Moses' could simply mean a latter-day Moses or something similar.

That's very speculative. Actually, according to Philo, that companion of Moses is not "Rises" but the one who uttered "Behold, the man named Rises!". Furthermore:
Outside that alleged allusion to Zechariah 6:12, Philo quoted nine prophetic writings in all his books. Each time he introduced the quote as emanating from either a "prophet" or one of the "prophets", and never from a companion of Moses.
- Questions and answers on Genesis II 43 --> Isa 1:9
- On dreams II XXVI 172 --> Isa 5:9
- On the change of names XXXI 169 --> Isa 48:22
- On rewards and punishments XXVII 156 --> Isa 54:1
- On flight and finding XXXVI 197 --> Jer 2:13
- On the Cherubim II XIV 49 --> Jer 3:4
- On the confusion of tongues XII 44 --> Jer 15:10
- Noah's work as a planter XXXIII 138 --> Hos 14:9
- On the change of names XXIV 139 --> Hos 14:9
Furthermore, the book of Zechariah never refers to Moses, his Law or anything about his life: so, in no way Zechariah could be identified as (only) a companion of Moses.
And the words in question are spoken by God (not one of the companions of Moses!) in Zec 6:12.

Well I don't read Zech 6:11 et seq that way - Jesus is introduced, then we get a set of 'He' passages, but they clearly seem to refer to that Jesus because he is called a high priest, and one of the He passages says : "And He shall be a priest upon His throne".
I don't see "someone else" there, just Jesus, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

Translation varies: Brenton's LXX translation has:
"And he ["Rises"] shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between [them] both."
And I see Jesus the son of Jehozadak, as NOT the one called "Rises".
"and thou [Jesus, s of J] shalt say to him ["Rises"] "Behold the man whose name is The Branch ["Rises"] and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord."
(Zec 6:12)
And according to the context, Zechariah might have thought (or/and hoped) that Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, would be that one ("Rises"): "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it;" (Zec 4:9)

Cordially, Bernard

[Bertie]

Thanks Bertie.
Do you have any other examples from Novenson?

Anyway, the issue boils down to whether names in the form "X son of Y" were ever translated and expanded. It appears not.

Kapyong

No, he only discusses patronymics in passing, since Paul (the subject of the book) happens not to have used any of them.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Carrier claims that a straight forward reading of Daniel's seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 leads to a prediction of around 30CE as the date for the Messiah being 'cut off'. (OHJ p.84)

He claims Julius Africanus is the best evidence for this, as quoted in George Syncellus' Excerpts of Chronography. (I don't suppose anyone knows an online copy of this?)

I have an answer on that: it is far from being straight forward, and first "discovered" by a notorious Christian apologist with the benefit of hindsight:
http://historical-jesus.info/103.html
Cordially, Bernard

I read your page Bernard, and here are my comments :

So Julius Africanus uses the 444 (or 445) Artaxerxes date as his starting point instead of Cyrus' decree and even notes that using Cyrus is no good. I do agree that Cyrus seems the best choice.

Africanus has to use a fudge factor (354 days in a year) to make it work out to 29CE (almost right). I note that various modern commentators have to do the same thing. Having an adjustment makes the calculation suspect, and not simple.

You conclude :

What is the overall conclusion?
The method of Julius Africanus, in order to have Daniel's prophecy pointing to 30 CE for the crucifixion of Christ, is far from being simple & straightforward, as Carrier contends.

I agree that his calculation is not simple and straightforward.
But Carrier does not specifically call Africanus' calculation 'straightforward and simple' (he merely says that a straightforward calculation leads to precisely 30CE which is arguably true.) Carrier only calls it the 'clearest' surviving example and cites others such as Tertullian "Answer to the Jews", 8 and Clement Alexandria "Miscellanies" 1.21.(125-126). I checked these two and they are even less clear. So I think you've been a bit hard on Carrier there Bernard.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Does that ['Grows' instead of 'Rises'] make a difference in favor of Carrier? If yes, explain.

Actually it weakens his case. While it may be possible to read a resurrection from a 'Jesus Rising', it's not so with 'Jesus Grows'.

“We do have a reference to a pre-existent being named Jesus who was the first born son of God, who was the high priest of the celestial temple, just like Hebrews explains, and was also called the logos, the word of God, and this is in Philo… Philo refers to this deity several times, this - deity's perhaps the wrong word, he's an archangel in Philo's vocabulary - who’s named Jesus.”

Well, that seems to be reaching - there is no Jesus in Philo that I know of - although perhaps I've missed something? Otherwise Carrier seems to be wrong here.

And I cannot accept Philo was pointing to Zechariah, which is what I explained also on my blog post. On this matter, it appears instead he did the opposite.
...
Philo quoted nine prophetic writings in all his books. Each time he introduced the quote as emanating from either a "prophet" or one of the "prophets", and never from a companion of Moses.

Well, I accept your argument that Philo was TRYING to point away from Zechariah (perhaps because no-one called Rises/Grows rebuilt the temple.) Nonetheless we can tell where he got the phrase from because we know what Zechariah says. That still points US to Zechariah.

Well, Carrier links "Rises/Grows" with the one of Zechariah even if Philo avoided to say he read the name from a prophet's writing (instead he claimed he heard it as something uttered from a companion of Moses). So that's an argument against Carrier.

But even if Philo avoids using the cite 'Zechariah' we can still see the link to it. I don't think this is a strong argument against Carrier.

And I see Jesus the son of Jehozadak, as NOT the one called "Rises".
"and thou [Jesus, s of J] shalt say to him ["Rises"] "Behold the man whose name is The Branch ["Rises"] and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord."
(Zec 6:12)

I disagree - 'thou' here is Zechariah, with God addressing him - consider a little earlier :

9 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 10 “Take from them of the captivity ... and come thou the same day and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah.

So it reads :
"and thou [Zechariah] shalt say to him [Jesus son of J.] "Behold the man whose name is The Branch [Rises/Grows] and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord." Zech. 6:12 LXX

I see them as the same person - Jesus son of J. and the man whose name is Grows/Rises.


Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

he merely says that a straightforward calculation leads to precisely 30CE which is arguably true

Which calculation? The one from whom Carrier bases his claim is the one of Africanus and no others, one calculation you declared yourself "not simple and straightforward".

On page 84 of "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ), Carrier made this starling comment:
Several examples of these calculations in early Christian literature, the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century. The date there calculated is precisely 30 CE; hence it was expected on this calculation (which was simple and straightforward enough that anyone could easily have come up with the same result well before the rise of Christianity) ...
And the Christian calculation was the most obvious, and therefore the most likely to have arrived at before the fact.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

to Kapyong,

he merely says that a straightforward calculation leads to precisely 30CE which is arguably true

Which calculation?

Using the Artaxerxes decree of 454BCE or 458BCE and adding 490 years gives 35CE or 31CE.
That in itself is pretty simple.

The one from whom Carrier bases his claim is the one of Africanus and no others,

That's not really correct, he doesn't really say he based his claims on Africanus, he just gives him as the clearest example, and he DOES cite two other examples which are less clear (Tertullian and Clement Alex.).

one calculation you declared yourself "not simple and straightforward".

I agree with you that it is NOT simple and straightforward in Africanus because he uses a fudge factor. But I also agree with Carrier that's is the clearest remaining example (because Tertullian and Clement Alex. aren't very clear.)

On page 84 of "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ), Carrier made this starling comment:
Several examples of these calculations in early Christian literature, the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century. The date there calculated is precisely 30 CE; hence it was expected on this calculation (which was simple and straightforward enough that anyone could easily have come up with the same result well before the rise of Christianity) ...
And the Christian calculation was the most obvious, and therefore the most likely to have arrived at before the fact.

Let's have a close look -

"Several examples of these calculations in early Christian literature,"
That is true - Africanus, Tertullian and Clement Alex.

"the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century"
That is also true. It IS the clearest (although it's not simple and straightforward.)

"The date there calculated is precisely 30 CE"
Well, that seems a bit bold - I cannot get PRECISELY to 30CE, just within a few years.

"hence it was expected on this calculation"
'This calculation' being the simple straightforward adding of 490 years to the start date, not Africanus' bungled calculation.

"which was simple and straightforward enough that anyone could easily have come up with the same result well before the rise of Christianity"
The basic calculation of adding 490 years to a decree's date IS simple and straightforward. The only real complexity is WHICH decree's date.

Admittedly there are several decrees to choose from, but if a writer in the late 1st C. was looking for a date in the early 1st century then Daniel does allow that in a quite simple and straightforward calculation - Artaxerxes 1st decree add 490 years = about 30CE.

Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

Using the Artaxerxes decree of 454BCE or 458BCE and adding 490 years gives 35CE or 31CE.
That in itself is pretty simple.

The first decree of Artaxerxes (rather a letter to Ezra) does not mention any reconstruction for Jerusalem. Carrier instead endorsed Africanus' calculation starting from the so-called second decree of Artaxerxes with fudged number of years.

That's not really correct, he doesn't really say he based his claims on Africanus, he just gives him as the clearest example, and he DOES cite two other examples which are less clear (Tertullian and Clement Alex.)

So on what calculation Carrier based his theory? It is clear to me that's mostly on Africanus' one, from Carrier's own words:
"Several examples of these calculations in early Christian literature, the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century. The date THERE calculated is precisely 30 CE; hence it was expected on THIS calculation (which was simple and straightforward ..."

"the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century"
That is also true. It IS the clearest (although it's not simple and straightforward.)

Not true: Carrier found the calculation by Africanus simple and straightforward.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

The first decree of Artaxerxes (rather a letter to Ezra) does not mention any reconstruction for Jerusalem.

Indeed it does not.

Carrier instead endorsed Africanus' calculation starting from the so-called second decree of Artaxerxes with fudged number of years.

Well, 'endorsed' seems a bit strong, but he certainly cites it as his example.

Not true: Carrier found the calculation by Africanus simple and straightforward.

Actually, upon re-reading, I agree with you.

Well, we've almost run out of issues to disagree about - apart from some details about Zechariah and Jesus Rises/Grows the son of Jehozadak.


Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

Well, we've almost run out of issues to disagree about - apart from some details about Zechariah and Jesus Rises/Grows the son of Jehozadak

Ya. I made a mistake. Here is the correction:
"and thou [Zechariah] shalt say to him [Jesus son of J.] "Behold the man whose name is The Branch ["Rises"] and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord."
(Zec 6:12)
Still, Jesus son of J. is a different person than the man called "Rises".
This is what I wrote on my blog post:
"My third argument: In Zechariah 6, God is asking "Zechariah" that Jesus the high priest (ch. 3), son of Josedec, to be the keeper of crowns (on his head) and wait for a still undeclared man ("Rises") to "spring up from his stem" and then rebuild the temple and becoming the king (the temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians and still not rebuilt yet).
Then the future (human) king (named the "Rises"), the one that Carrier thinks Philo referred to, is not Jesus (son of Josedec) but someone else. According to the context, Zechariah might have thought (or/and hoped) that Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, would be that one: "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it;" (Zec 4:9)."

And even Philo admitted he hijacked the name of a man called "Rises/Grows" (from a mysterious oral source) because the name in question fitted his incorporeal being (not a man!):
“Behold, the man named Rises!” is 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 ‘Rises’ has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the Universe has caused him to rise up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn."

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Ya. I made a mistake. Here is the correction:
"and thou [Zechariah] shalt say to him [Jesus son of J.] "Behold the man whose name is The Branch ["Rises"] and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord."

Never let it be said that Bernard cannot accept mistakes

Still, Jesus son of J. is a different person than the man called "Rises".

Hmmm, well I'd agree that it CAN be read that way.

According to the context, Zechariah might have thought (or/and hoped) that Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, would be that one: "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it;" (Zec 4:9)."

That makes sense considering Zerubbabel laid the foundations.

And even Philo admitted he hijacked the name of a man called "Rises/Grows" (from a mysterious oral source) because the name in question fitted his incorporeal being (not a man!):

Hmm... what exactly is the argument here?
Carrier is positing a heavenly being - doesn't that fit right in ?


Kapyong