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

[Secret Alias]

Is your point that 'Jesus of Yahweh is righteousness the high priest' is an exoteric English interpretation of the Greek text Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦ μεγάλου?

[Secret Alias]

And why didn't Carrier just say 'plain meaning' of the text? Who uses the term 'exoteric' any more? Neither his translation nor his interpretation brings forward the plain meaning of the Greek text of Zechariah.

[Secret Alias]

Some examples of the correct usage of the terms 'exoteric' and 'esoteric' with relations to Zechariah. Larkin notes (The Eschatology of Second Zechariah p. 33) that significant differences exist between different parts of Zechariah are obvious. She cites another author to make the point that certain parts need to be interpreted 'esoterically' and others 'exoterically':

Fishbane claims, in other words, that the scriptural tradition itself came to be regarded as another kind of raw data on which manticism could be practised. This argument certainly bears directly on the interpretation of Zechariah 9-12. The main difference between the exegesis of dreams, visions and omens, and the exegesis of oracles, is said to be that whereas visual material is esoteric and requires immediate decoding, so that in literary terms the image and its interpretation will be presented together in one stylistic ensemble, 'auditory' phenomena such as oracles are exoteric and self-explanatory at least when first presented, and the need to respecify the original plain sense will only arise, if at all, after a lapse of time.9 Because the occasion for the exegesis differs, it also manifests itself rather differently.

It is hard to imagine how transforming a name spelled out in Greek letters in a Greek manuscript in light of its Hebrew meaning could properly be described as an 'exoteric' interpretation of the text.

[Secret Alias]

I should also say that this criticism I just made has nothing at all to do with other problems that I have with Carrier's overall approach. I don't think - for instance - that if we never had Philo's reference here to Zechariah that anyone could 'predict' what his interpretation of Zechariah 6:12 would have been. It is utterly surprising. The leap from LXX Zechariah to Philo is unexpected. Yet even with this said it is a separate difficulty from what I am point to in the last post. Carrier claims that his interpretation of the text is somehow 'exoteric' and so based on the 'plainness' of his reading of the material these 'facts' about the Greek text of Zechariah would have been self-evident to Philo. This is absolutely ridiculous. His interpretation and the translation from which he develops his interpretation are the furthest thing from being 'exoteric.' They are as I already noted merely another - wholly modern - esoteric interpretation of Zechariah with a specific agenda at work in them. Carrier's is a thoroughly execrable claim with a deplorable methodology which should be laughed out of this and other discussion groups.

[MrMacSon]

"... new research into intertextuality ... increasingly shows the extent to which the Gospel texts that we actually have manuscripts for
were constructed largely by reshaping earlier texts, primarily from the Old Testament.33"

• 33 Brodie 2012. Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Memoir of a Discovery. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

https://www.academia.edu/17918313/Ehrma ... cholarship


“Intertextuality” ... refers to the full range of ways in which scriptural authors drew on earlier written sources – by quoting them, paraphrasing them, reworking them, alluding to them, etc.20

• 20 Luke’s infancy stories about Jesus can serve as an example of the sort of intertextuality relevant to historical Jesus studies:
  Luke mined the Old Testament for stories of miraculous births, adopting and adapting details to create a new story for Jesus.
  On intertextuality in general, see also Moyise 2002; Brodie et al 2006; -
  
  • Moyise, Steve. 2002. "Intertextuality and Biblical Studies: A Review," Verbum et Ecclesia 23:2:418-31.
    
    Brodie, Thomas L., Dennis Ronald MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter, eds. 2006. New Testament Monographs, 16.
    • The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

"Thomas Brodie is not well known among the general public, but among New Testament scholars he is widely esteemed for his brilliant and pioneering work in the area of biblical intertextuality."

.

[MrMacSon]

It is hard to imagine how transforming a name spelled out in Greek letters in a Greek manuscript in light of its Hebrew meaning could properly be described as an 'exoteric' interpretation of the text.

Reductio ad absurdum

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Note: the Hebrew for "Jehozadak" can mean "Jehovah is righteous", or "whom Jehovah has made just", but certainly not just "Jehovah":

Yes, but that's for Jehozadak, a translation from the Hebrew text, not for Josedec, which appears in the LXX. Philo, as other diaspora Jews, was using the Greek Septuagint, not the original Hebrew text.
And certainly "Jehovah is righteous", or "whom Jehovah has made just" or "Jehovah righted" is not the same than (only) "Jehovah" or "Jehovah the Righteous".
However Carrier used that in order to get to "Jesus son of Jehovah the righteous" and that Jesus of Zechariah being seen as God's son.

I don't favor any text.

You claim cienfiegos version suggested that Jesus son of Josedec was not the 'anatole' (Branch) in Zec 3:8.

I wrote: The text says God is bringing forth his servant the Branch for Jeshua the High Priest, and the neighbours sitting before him. Why one of those hearing God then would also be the Branch?

You answered: Yes, that text suggest that; but the key point is that there are lots of versions of these texts.

I am asking now: what version do you know which would suggest "one of those hearing God then would also be the Branch".

Is there a uniform "Septuagint version"?

No (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint), but that's no reason to suggest one version available in early 1st century would exist which would corroborate your conclusions, when you do not have evidence for that. And Carrier did not indicate from where he got his odd translation of Zec 6:11-13a. Maybe you should ask him. Anyway, "Jehovah the righteous" cannot be considered the name of the father of the Jesus in 'Zechariah', a mortal man:
1 Ch 6:14-15: "
"And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak,
And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar."

The LXX has: "and Azarias begot Saraia, and Saraias begot Josadac.
And Josadac ['Ιωσαδακ'] went into captivity with Juda and Jerusalem under Nabuchodonosor."

Other occurrences of Josedec are from 'Haggai', as in:
LXX 1:1 "In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the firs day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of the prophet Aggaeus, saying, Speak to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, and to Jesus the son of Josedec ['Ιωσεδεκ'], the high priest, saying,"

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

Reductio ad absurdum

So Carrier's transformation of the name Ιωσεδεκ into a phrase is 'exoteric'? The Hebrew meaning of the name would have been obvious to Philo and Greek speakers? That's absurd. The deeper one looks at this nonsense the more this shit really starts stinking!

[Secret Alias]

How can you keep defending this crap? It's one layer of garbage piled on another layer of garbage.

[Secret Alias]

So Carrier pretends that he has produced the plain meaning of Greek text Zechariah for his readers when what he has really produces is a wholly esoteric interpretation of that text and then - because he has allegedly laid out the plain meaning of Greek Zechariah - he claims it is self-evident that Philo must have known in Greek what Carrier lays out in English. Complete BS.