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

[TedM]

but it is exactly in this way that I get to have in my hands a coincidence too-impossible-to-be-a-coincidence:

...that the name 'Jesus' is found for pure coincidence (= the coincidence of which I speak) just near to the claim that ''someone else'' should be called ''anatolè''.

In this way I have the beauty of three coincidences:
1) That Paul talks about an angel with x, y, z features,
2) that Philo talks about an angel with x, y, z features
3) that the title ''Anatolè'' referred by Philo in Zecharia is found by pure coincidence near to a guy named 'Jesus', even if Zecharia did refer to Zerubabel (or someone other) as the 'anatolè'.

The Carrier'argument is that to have together those three coincidences is no longer a coincidence.

Well said Guiseppe. Carrier has a good point IMO. It may be completely wrong but the fact that the name of Jesus is right there - and could be misconstrued even as being the Branch - makes it a consideration. There could have been hundreds of other names there and no one would think twice. But the fact that it is the very name Paul says God bestowed his pre-existing Servant as well as the other things in common with Philo's ideas about the son of God/Branch/Rises/angel etc.. makes it seem like it might not be a coincidence.

[Secret Alias]

Tsemach does not = branch. Stop repeating this.

[TedM]

Tsemach does not = branch. Stop repeating this.

So Branch is a mistranslation? I have to admit I have ignored most of what you have written here, and will continue to do so, as I've learned it is in my best interest. All I know is the NASB translation uses the word Branch. 'Rises' actually makes Carrier's point stronger, due to the resurrection connection to the Messiah.

[Giuseppe]

Answer

1 The earliest Christian group identified their God as Eesu (Marcionites) according to Ephrem and not Eeshu (= Syr. 'Joshua') Why the distinction?
2 Philo identifies his angel only as an 'anthropos' which is a Greek translation of Zechariah's IS (pronounced eesh)

What you are saying, Stephan, IF true, is not totally in contradiction with Carrier' thesis that there is some link with Christianity behind Philo's use of Zecahria etc. Simply, you are revealing (assuming you are right) how that link 'Philo<---->Paul' did find his way of showing himself via Zechariah. Carrier isn't saying precisely what you say because he fears to do so a possibiliter fallacy (for example, by assuming with you that the ''earliest Christian group identified their God as Eesu (Marcionites) according to Ephrem and not Eeshu (= Syr. 'Joshua')'' ).

But note that Bernard says there even that link you talk about (Anthropos = IS in Greek, where IS is the Isa of the Muslims, i.e. the ancient name of the mythological angel Jesus) didn't exist. That it was only a mere coincidence that 'Jesus' is the the guy who found himself by chance nearby, when another guy was called ''Anatole''.

[Secret Alias]

I am saying the similarities only demonstrate that the Christians likely read IS as a transliteration of a Hebrew term (like PIPI and others) and not as a "first letter, last letter code" for Jesus. The evidence for Philo knowing an angel named Jesus is about as strong as the claim he ate pizza everyday. Zechariah only says the anatole was an IS (= man)

[Giuseppe]

Did Justin quote Philo esplicitly at least a time?

Zechariah only says the anatole was an IS (= man)

In other terms, you confess to see your angel JESUS in Zecharia!

Well: Carrier says your view is not a coincidence.

[Secret Alias]

No.

[iskander]

There seem to be 365 Messianic Prophecies , of which number 332. Zechariah 6:12-13...Priest and King... Hebrews 8:1 is one.

The prophecy number 332 could be taken to have been proven by this messianic OP.
Amen.
http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

[Bernard Muller]

In this way I have the beauty of three coincidences:
1) That Paul talks about an angel with x, y, z features,
2) that Philo talks about an angel with x, y, z features

If you read my website, you would know coincidences between your 1) & 2) points are explained because Paul & the author of 'Hebrews' were very much inspired by Philo for the title, role, status of the heavenly Jesus. Yes the Christology of Paul is very much borrowed from Philo of Alexandria (by way of the author of 'Hebrews', most likely Apollos of Alexandria). What followed is extracted from http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html:

>> Some quotes from Philo's works:

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)

Note: the speudo-Daniel Dead Sea scroll 4Q246 mentions a "son of God" as the mysterious "like a son of man" of Da7:13:
"He will be called the son of God; they will call him the son of the Most High ... His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and he will be righteous in all his ways. He [will jud]ge the earth in righteousness and everyone will make peace ... every nation will bow down to him ..."

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) <<

Note: Paul never adopted Jesus as priest or high priest, but the author of 'Hebrews' did.

3) that the title ''Anatolè'' referred by Philo in Zecharia is found by pure coincidence near to a guy named 'Jesus', even if Zecharia did refer to Zerubabel (or someone other) as the 'anatolè'.

Not a coincidence. It just happens Jesus son of Josedec has the same first name than the Jesus of Christians. "Jesus" was a very common name in ancient Israel.

Furthermore it looks that Philo tried to distance himself with the 'Anatole' of 'Zechariah', even if he liked the name, which he borrowed for his heavenly & eternal Son of God:

From http://historical-jesus.info/17.html:
>> Next is a Septuagint translation of Zechariah 6:11-15:
"And thou shalt take silver and gold, and make crowns, and thou shalt put them upon the head of Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest; 12 and thou [Zechariah] shalt say to him [Jesus son of Josedec], Thus saith the Lord Almighty; Behold the man whose name is the Branch [better translated as "Rises" or "Rising" or "Dawn"]; and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord. 13 And he 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. 14 And the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it, and for the favor of the son of Sophonias, and for a psalm in the house of the Lord. 15 And they that are far from them shall come and build in the house of the Lord, and ye shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you: and this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord your God"
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Zacharias/index.htm

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

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 "Rises" from Zechariah 6 but he did not want to admit it, therefore avoiding "Rises" to be associated with its context in 'Zechariah' (as a man who will build the second temple).
That allowed Philo to apply the name ("novel appellation") to God's incorporeal firstborn. <<

It beats me trying to understand that anyone, then or now, would link the man "Rises" of Zechariah, or Jesus, son of Josedec, (who lived & died many centuries before the 1st century AD) to Philo's heavenly & eternal Son of God, despite what Carrier said in OHJ: "some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus—because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy Zech. 6.12 in just such a way." (There is absolutely NO evidence Jews, at any times, entertained that belief).

That just shows to me how desperate Mythicists are in finding any kind of so-called evidence in order to support their case. Even Doherty mildly objected: "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."

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

Tsemach does not = branch. Stop repeating this.

So Branch is a mistranslation? I have to admit I have ignored most of what you have written here, and will continue to do so, as I've learned it is in my best interest. All I know is the NASB translation uses the word Branch. 'Rises' actually makes Carrier's point stronger, due to the resurrection connection to the Messiah.

Tsemach = 1. coll. growth, what sprouts; its fresh shoots; — 2. (the individual) shoot, bud: metaph. of Messianic king Je 23:5.

The LXX has Anatole. Ανατολή, ῆς, ἡ —1. rising of a star —2. rising of the sun, East, Orient [all stars and the sun appear to "rise" from the east and "set" in the west].

I think what is annoying Stephan is that the word tsemach does not properly mean "branch" (that would be "bad").

Everyone also thinks netzer means "branch, but it actually means "a shoot". A good concordance does wonders. I have always liked Robert Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible (1879, based on the AV/KJV), and I think it is way more useful than Strong's.

DCH