Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If you can't come up with evidence that Philo knew about a 'Jesus angel' you should recognize in your own mind that this is an assertion rather than a thesis.

That makes you an evil gas-lighting creep.

to MrMacSon,

Bernard, re 2 Carrier has stated
" ...the name Jehozadak means, in Hebrew, 'Jehovah the Righteous'.." pp. 82-3 of OHJ

NO, it does not:
BTW, in his element 40 of OHJ (p. 200-205) (all of it relative to Philo and Zechariah's "Jesus"), Carrier has "Jesus, the son of Jehovah the righteous" in his quote of Zec 6:11, instead of "Jesus, son of Josedec/Jehozadak/Josedech" (without "the"), as in all translations and the LXX.
Note: the Hebrew for "Jehozadak" can mean "Jehovah is righteous", or "whom Jehovah has made just", but certainly not just "Jehovah the righteous": https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3087&t=KJV
And the Septuagint, that Carrier alleged Philo partially quoted for Zec 6:11-13 has "... Jesus the son of Josedec [Ιωσεδὲκ -> Iwsedek] the high priest ..."
NO Jehozadak, NO Jehovah the righteous here.

re 3. Carrier has argued that the end of Zech 3 differentiates the priest from the high priest on the throne -

But the most logical priest to seat next to the king would be the high priest. And if Jesus son of Josedec & high priest, was that king, why would he need another priest next to him?

"Carrier has stated", "Carrier has argued": Do you think Carrier's OHJ is inerrant sacred scriptures?

Cordially, Bernard

Deleted because already posted

Earlier in the forum, I posted excerpts from several chapters of Zechariah

I remember you passing off the Masoretic text alongside the Greek text of Zechariah so forgive me if I don't care

Secret Alias wrote:Philo's is an esoteric interpretation of Zechariah. Hence Carrier's appeal to the exoteric reading of Zechariah is misleading.

So Philo didn't use " the standard (Bretton) translation of LXX Zechariah" ???

So naughty of him

Secret Alias wrote:

Earlier in the forum, I posted excerpts from several chapters of Zechariah

I remember you passing off the Masoretic text alongside the Greek text of Zechariah so forgive me if I don't care

Jerk. That was a separate issue to the one I alluded to then, and alluded to just now.

another red-herring by you

the name Jehozadak means, in Hebrew, 'Jehovah the Righteous'.

What a name means in its archaic prehistory does not grant a translator the right to substitute that meaning in place of the name. We've gone over this time and again. My own name means 'crown' but it would be unnatural to substitute the meaning of my name for my name especially when my name (like Joshua the priests name) was a foreign name. This is getting sillier and sillier.

Secret Alias wrote:Carrier in fact develops his own esoteric reading of Zechariah and then repackages it (falsely) as an exoteric reading so as to make it seem to his readers that it is the only interpretation Philo could have had. But the reality is that there is no limit to the manner in which one can develop an allegorical reading of a given text.

Yeah! You finally write some sense.

Peter not only is MrMacson becoming more abusive but he is continuing to act in evasive manner. Look at this:

So Philo didn't use " the standard (Bretton) translation of LXX Zechariah" ???

Surely the idea that Philo developed an esoteric interpretation of the Greek text is self-explanatory.

No you can't twist away from this so easily. The fact that there are no limits to how one can allegorize a text does not help Carrier's case. Why did Carrier call his translation an 'exoteric' rendering of the Greek when in fact it was an entirely esoteric rendering of Zechariah? The answer is obvious. By claiming it was exoteric he was trying to say that his interpretation of Zechariah was the only one which Philo could have had. This is deceptive. In reality Philo developed one esoteric interpretation of Zechariah and Carrier another and then Carrier tried to claim that his interpretation of Zechariah was Philo's. This is so silly it doesn't require much in the way to refute it. I can't believe you are still defending such a ludicrous premise.

It is the epitome of a bad argument in the humanities.