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

[MrMacSon]

I posted the OP to see what lay behind Carrier's assertions in that video: to get people to discus those assertions, and help provide information for or against Carrier's assertions.

Responses included postings from Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus; references to or excerpts from other works by Carrier including 'Not the Impossible Faith'; and various blog-post responses Carrier has made to questions about what are essentially his extrapolations about the works of Philo where Philo philosophizes about theology (those blog-post responses are March 2013, Spetember 2013, and December 2015 ).

While I think Carrier has been careless and 'unscholarly' in his assertions that video, and there is no explicit reference to a specific 'Jesus angel' in the works of Philo, I think Carrier has, overall, provided in OHJ and his blog-posts a reasonable argument that the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner as such in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams especially if one looks at various versions of these documents (beyond those versions of Kirby's web-sites)

eg. Philo On Dreams 1.215

For there are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word, and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real Man; the outward and visible image of whom is he who offers the prayers and sacrifices handed down from our fathers, to whom it has been committed to wear the aforesaid tunic, which is a copy and replica of the whole heaven, the intention of this being that the universe may join with man in the holy rites and man with the universe.

κέκληκεν επ* αύτω περιστήθιον, τών κατ* ούρανόν
φωσφόρων άστρων άπεικόνισμα και μίμημα. δύο
γάρ, ώς έοικεν, ιερά θεοϋ, έν μέν Οδε ο κόσμος, iv
ω και άρχιερεύς ό πρωτόγονος αύτοϋ θείος λόγος,
έτερον δέ λογική φνχή, ής ιερεύς ό προς άλήθειαν
άνθρωπος, ού μίμημα αίσθητόν ό τάς πατρίους
εύχάς και θυσίας επιτελών έστιν, ω τον είρημένον
έπιτέτραπται χιτώνα ένδύεσθαι, τοϋ παντός άντί-
μιμον όντα ουρανού, ίνα συνιερουργή και ό κόσμος
άνθρώπω και τω παντί άνθρωπος.


http://bookzz.org/book/1205895/f70d19

-

As I have said, or as I have implied, it is easy to be disparagingly black or white about what is essentially a grey theological area, thus a grey interpretive area for us today.

eta. And Carrier could have provide better citations and more nuanced arguments in OHJ and other writings of his.

[Peter Kirby]

the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner as such in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams

The million dollar question, though, is what is most likely about who did this this extrapolation and interpretation about supposed implications first. Obviously this 'interpretation' exists, if only for the reason that Carrier (at least) has made it exist.

1) Is it most likely that Philo himself thought this way?
2) Is it most likely that some other ancients read Zechariah and/or Philo this way?
3) Is the interpretation most likely even more recent - late antique, medieval, or even modern?

At least we have relatively direct evidence for answering the 1st of these questions because we have Philo's voluminous books. The other questions are speculative. I'd be more than willing to consider a reasoned dialogue about whether ancients other than Philo saw such a reading as plausible.

I think we're both tired of wrangling over Philo himself (and, for that matter, both of us know what the relevant facts are in Philo's case -- and what they certainly don't evince).

[MrMacSon]

the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner as such in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams

Let me reword that slightly ('for' for 'as' (and bracket () the last section to reduce the tautology) -

the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing* and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner for such [a supreme [theological] entity] (ie. in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and *in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams).

[MrMacSon]

... what is most likely about who did this this extrapolation and interpretation about supposed implications first. Obviously this 'interpretation' exists, if only for the reason that Carrier (at least) has made it exist.

1) Is it most likely that Philo himself thought this way?
2) Is it most likely that some other ancients read Zechariah and/or Philo this way?
3) Is the interpretation most likely even more recent - late antique, medieval, or even modern?

At least we have relatively direct evidence for answering the 1st of these questions because we have Philo's voluminous books. The other questions are speculative. I'd be more than willing to consider a reasoned dialogue about whether ancients other than Philo saw such a reading as plausible.

Re (1) See my quote for (the Loeb of Philo's On Dreams above ^^^)

Re (2) and "whether ancients other than Philo saw such a reading as plausible" - We have several recent new threads on this forum alluding to dual interpretations of entities in ancient texts -

• by Huller - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=2018
  
  by kennethgreifer - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=2016

The vagaries of these ancient texts - largely based on vision or dreams - lead to difficulties in 'readings' and interpretations of 'readings'

[Peter Kirby]

the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing* and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner for such [a supreme [theological] entity] (ie. in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and *in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams).

1) Is it most likely that Philo himself thought this way?

Re (1) See my quote for (the Loeb of Philo's On Dreams above ^^^)

Please explain what the quote is supposed to show.

eg. Philo On Dreams 1.215

For there are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word, and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real Man; the outward and visible image of whom is he who offers the prayers and sacrifices handed down from our fathers, to whom it has been committed to wear the aforesaid tunic, which is a copy and replica of the whole heaven, the intention of this being that the universe may join with man in the holy rites and man with the universe.

κέκληκεν επ* αύτω περιστήθιον, τών κατ* ούρανόν
φωσφόρων άστρων άπεικόνισμα και μίμημα. δύο
γάρ, ώς έοικεν, ιερά θεοϋ, έν μέν Οδε ο κόσμος, iv
ω και άρχιερεύς ό πρωτόγονος αύτοϋ θείος λόγος,
έτερον δέ λογική φνχή, ής ιερεύς ό προς άλήθειαν
άνθρωπος, ού μίμημα αίσθητόν ό τάς πατρίους
εύχάς και θυσίας επιτελών έστιν, ω τον είρημένον
έπιτέτραπται χιτώνα ένδύεσθαι, τοϋ παντός άντί-
μιμον όντα ουρανού, ίνα συνιερουργή και ό κόσμος
άνθρώπω και τω παντί άνθρωπος.


http://bookzz.org/book/1205895/f70d19

(The quote above is itself posted without explanation.)

[MrMacSon]

the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing* and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner for such [a supreme [theological] entity] (ie. in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and *in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams).

1) Is it most likely that Philo himself thought this way?

Re (1) See my quote for (the Loeb of Philo's On Dreams 1.215 ...)

• For there are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word, and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real Man; the outward and visible image of whom is he who offers the prayers and sacrifices handed down from our fathers, to whom it has been committed to wear the aforesaid tunic, which is a copy and replica of the whole heaven, the intention of this being that the universe may join with man in the holy rites and man with the universe.
  
  κέκληκεν επ* αύτω περιστήθιον, τών κατ* ούρανόν
  φωσφόρων άστρων άπεικόνισμα και μίμημα. δύο
  γάρ, ώς έοικεν, ιερά θεοϋ, έν μέν Οδε ο κόσμος, iv
  ω και άρχιερεύς ό πρωτόγονος αύτοϋ θείος λόγος,
  έτερον δέ λογική φνχή, ής ιερεύς ό προς άλήθειαν
  άνθρωπος, ού μίμημα αίσθητόν ό τάς πατρίους
  εύχάς και θυσίας επιτελών έστιν, ω τον είρημένον
  έπιτέτραπται χιτώνα ένδύεσθαι, τοϋ παντός άντί-
  μιμον όντα ουρανού, ίνα συνιερουργή και ό κόσμος
  άνθρώπω και τω παντί άνθρωπος.

http://bookzz.org/book/1205895/f70d19

Please explain what the quote is supposed to show.

I think it shows that Philo himself was speculating in trying to explain a theology around Priests and their [alleged] roles in conducting themselves in both the heavenly & earthly realms.

[MrMacSon]

.
I'd like to reflect Neil Godfrey (& Simon Gathercole) in my last post on this thread -

A 2005 article in the Journal of Theological Studies (doi:10.1093/jts/fli105) by Simon Gathercole links Philo’s interpretation of the Zechariah passage with Luke 1:78-79. Speaking of the coming of Jesus, the father of John the Baptist says:

• 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.’

So the Gospel of Luke knows of the Rising as Jesus, and Zechariah 6:11-12 also tells us that the name of this one who Rises is Jesus:

• And thou shalt take gold and silver: and shalt make crowns, and thou shalt set them on the head of Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest.
  
  And thou shalt speak to him, saying: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying: BEHOLD A MAN, THE ORIENT (i.e. RISES) IS HIS NAME: and under him shall he spring up, and shall build a temple to the Lord.

(Carrier says that this Jesus was to be crowned king, but I think the crown was for the priestly authority. But that’s a side issue.)*

The JTS article also notes the striking contrast between the Zechariah 6:12 claim that the “Rises” “will arise from beneath” while the Gospel’s claim is that this Jesus-Rises “will visit from on high“.

http://vridar.org/2012/08/01/a-pre-chri ... nly-jesus/

* One could conclude that the priest to be crowned was that Jeshua/'Jesus'

Godfrey continues -

But what does this make of the Jesus (Joshua) in the Book of Zechariah? How could Philo interpret him to be the firstborn son and Logos of God? Quite apart from Philo’s Platonic training in reading texts allegorically, the Book of Zechariah itself says that its Jesus is an allegory, a type, a foreshadowing of another figure:

• Listen, O high priest Joshua [Jesus] and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, [Rises]. (Zech. 3:8 — other translations say “sign”. “Rises” has become a preferable translation to “Branch”)

This Jesus was also said in the same book to be symbolic of two burning lampstands fueled by olive oil.

• And he saith, `These [are] the two sons of the oil [anointed ones], who are standing by the Lord of the whole earth.’ (Zech. 4:14)

The word is not the same as “messiah” but it is surely suggestive.

The same Jesus was made “sin” and was rescued from the clutches of Satan to be glorified and rule:

• And the Lord said to Satan: The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan: and the Lord that chose Jerusalem rebuke thee: Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
  
  And Jesus was clothed with filthy garments: and he stood before the face of the angel.
  
  Who answered, and said to them that stood before him, saying: Take away the filthy garments from him. And he said to him: Behold I have taken away thy iniquity, and have clothed thee with change of garments.
  
  And he said: Put a clean mitre upon his head: and they put a clean mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments, and the angel of the Lord stood. (Zech. 3:2-5)

It is not the gospel story, but it is not hard to see it as an analogue of the crucified Jesus who was raised again.

Much more can be said and probably has been said in discussions that have escaped my notice.

Philo introduces his reflections on the heavenly firstborn Logos, a Jesus renamed Rises, or a Jesus who was a symbolic representation of the heavenly Rises, with this:

• I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this . . . .

It sounds like Philo is referring to one of the many Jewish interpretations and speculations about the biblical figures that in this instance happened to support his primary theme.

It’s an interesting mix: we have persons in the bible narrative being interpreted as allegories; we have a Jesus who is said to be the Rises/Dawn Rising in Zechariah, in Philo and in the Gospel of Luke; he is the son of Josedec whom Spong and others have noted is close to “Joseph”; the same is said to be the firstborn Son of God and Logos (Word) with God from the beginning; there is also suggestion of this Jesus being an anointed one (messiah) and having been attacked by and rescued from Satan to be raised (from “below”) to glory.

A lot of interesting, if speculative at this point, stuff. What it shows is yet another set of passages that could have fed the ideas from which Christianity took root.

http://vridar.org/2012/08/01/a-pre-chri ... nly-jesus/

Moreover,

Grog asked

• Neil, Could you comment further on interpreting “branch” in Zec 6:12 as “rises”?

• Neil Godfrey replied [paragraphed by me]
  
  • 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.

The perceived ties to Luke are interesting.

[Peter Kirby]

the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing* and the vagaries of various relevant passages in Zechariah (Zech 6:11-13 and Zech 3) could be extrapolated and interpreted to imply that 'Jeshua ben Josadak/Jehosadak' was being considered as a supreme [theological] entity or a fore-runner for such [a supreme [theological] entity] (ie. in both Zechariah 6:11-13 and *in Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues/Language or On Dreams).

1) Is it most likely that Philo himself thought this way?

Re (1) See my quote for (the Loeb of Philo's On Dreams 1.215 ...)

• For there are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word, and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real Man; the outward and visible image of whom is he who offers the prayers and sacrifices handed down from our fathers, to whom it has been committed to wear the aforesaid tunic, which is a copy and replica of the whole heaven, the intention of this being that the universe may join with man in the holy rites and man with the universe.
  
  κέκληκεν επ* αύτω περιστήθιον, τών κατ* ούρανόν
  φωσφόρων άστρων άπεικόνισμα και μίμημα. δύο
  γάρ, ώς έοικεν, ιερά θεοϋ, έν μέν Οδε ο κόσμος, iv
  ω και άρχιερεύς ό πρωτόγονος αύτοϋ θείος λόγος,
  έτερον δέ λογική φνχή, ής ιερεύς ό προς άλήθειαν
  άνθρωπος, ού μίμημα αίσθητόν ό τάς πατρίους
  εύχάς και θυσίας επιτελών έστιν, ω τον είρημένον
  έπιτέτραπται χιτώνα ένδύεσθαι, τοϋ παντός άντί-
  μιμον όντα ουρανού, ίνα συνιερουργή και ό κόσμος
  άνθρώπω και τω παντί άνθρωπος.

http://bookzz.org/book/1205895/f70d19

Please explain what the quote is supposed to show.

I think it shows that Philo himself was speculating in trying to explain a theology around Priests and their [alleged] roles in conducting themselves in both the heavenly & earthly realms.

It's useless for establishing that Philo regarded any particular high priest in history (whether this Joshua, some other Joshua, or a Bob, Tom, Dick or Harry) to be his incorporeal Logos or even a so-called "fore-runner" of such. Philo doesn't speculate on such in his books, and his reference to Zechariah 6:12 is to the anticipated man named Anatole, as a reference to a name which must belong to his Logos because it can be ascribed to no man, which is no grounds for identification of either (Logos or Anatole) to the certain high priest Joshua, in the mind of Philo.

It's a reheat of Carrier's own tired argument that the High Priest attribute of the Logos helps establish his idea, which was not sound the first time or any of the other times. Carrier's argument would be sound if it proceeded from the basis that Carrier originally proceeded from: that the Anatole is plausibly, even necessarily, interpreted to be the same as this historical high priest Joshua. That premise is false, and no amount of farting around with other quotes from Philo, having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this high priest Jesus, is going to save Carrier's argument.

[Peter Kirby]

.
I'd like to reflect Neil Godfrey (& Simon Gathercole) in my last post on this thread -

A 2005 article in the Journal of Theological Studies (doi:10.1093/jts/fli105) by Simon Gathercole links Philo’s interpretation of the Zechariah passage with Luke 1:78-79. Speaking of the coming of Jesus, the father of John the Baptist says:

• 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.’

So the Gospel of Luke knows of the Rising as Jesus, and Zechariah 6:11-12 also tells us that the name of this one who Rises is Jesus:

• And thou shalt take gold and silver: and shalt make crowns, and thou shalt set them on the head of Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest.
  
  And thou shalt speak to him, saying: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying: BEHOLD A MAN, THE ORIENT (i.e. RISES) IS HIS NAME: and under him shall he spring up, and shall build a temple to the Lord.

(Carrier says that this Jesus was to be crowned king, but I think the crown was for the priestly authority. But that’s a side issue.)*

The JTS article also notes the striking contrast between the Zechariah 6:12 claim that the “Rises” “will arise from beneath” while the Gospel’s claim is that this Jesus-Rises “will visit from on high“.

http://vridar.org/2012/08/01/a-pre-chri ... nly-jesus/

* One could conclude that the priest to be crowned was that Jeshua/'Jesus'

Luke 1:78-79 connects the Anatole with Jesus of Nazareth, for the author of the infancy narrative in Luke.

It does absolutely nothing to establish this erroneous reading that Philo considered the historical high priest Joshua to be the Logos which is the divine image itself or the fore-runner of such.

Bringing it up in this connection underscores the fact that the primary arguments, originally advanced in favor of this idea, which might have been logical, have all failed.

[Peter Kirby]

Godfrey continues -

But what does this make of the Jesus (Joshua) in the Book of Zechariah? How could Philo interpret him to be the firstborn son and Logos of God?

Simple. Philo doesn't. That reading is not Philo's. It has been imputed to the text, originally in innocent error (now, not so much).

Quite apart from Philo’s Platonic training in reading texts allegorically, the Book of Zechariah itself says that its Jesus is an allegory, a type, a foreshadowing of another figure:

It's important to be clear about what Zechariah is doing in the text. Zechariah is anticipating two figures, not one -- a king and a priest. It has also put in the groundwork for the identification of two 'proleptic', anticipatory figures, one of which is fully legitimate (answering to God) but not with a legitimate counterpart in a king that is independent and legitimate (answering to God).

Zerubbabel and Joshua are the living figures in the text of Zechariah who correspond to the anticipated messianic figures of the righteous king and priest, acting in concert. Zerubbabel, however, answer to the Persians. There is no independent kingdom of Judea. The prophecy is messianic in that it prophesies the restoration of a kingdom of Judea, with the figures who will bring it. One of them is a king, and the other is a priest. Joshua is not in any way defective as high priest, so he is being symbolically crowned in hope -- the hope of the day when there will be a king, a man named Branch / Rising, who will be in accord with the priesthood and, of course, not have to answer to the Persians.

When we go back and read Zechariah and pick up what the text is saying, we can see how one-dimensional and forced Carrier's interpretation is. Carrier's interpretation is basically like the Christians' apologetic interpretations of OT texts, imputing what they wish to find there in order to find what they were looking for. Perhaps that is why the Gospel of Luke can be marshalled here as supposed aid to the thesis.

The high priest Joshua is not a king, is not the Branch, is not 'Rising', and is not even symbolic or 'fore-running' of such a figure. He is a priest, who stands for one side (currently the only side that is as it should be, in the narrative) of the two-fold prophecy of a king and priest who rule together in harmony. The high priest Joshua is crowned in anticipation of this bright, joyous hoped-for future, in the narrative. The high priest Joshua himself doesn't usher in that age, nor would he on his own symbolize the hoped-for Davidic king for the author of Zechariah, nor does he symbolize the Messiah or the Logos for Philo.