Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: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.

You contradict yourself there, Bernard in red

And

So “Jesus of Josedek” (iesou tou Iwsedek) could well be 'Jesus of YHWH'

.

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.

So “Jesus of Josedek” (iesou tou Iwsedek) could well be 'Jesus of YHWH'

Really? In Greek?

From Wikipedia defining 'exoteric'

Exoteric refers to knowledge that is outside, and independent from, a person's experience and can be ascertained by anyone (related to common sense). It is distinguished from internal esoteric knowledge. "Exoteric" relates to external reality as opposed to a person's thoughts or feelings.

Carrier's translation is not an exoteric rendering of Zechariah.

Bernard Muller wrote:

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?

The passages suggest that 'Jesus', son of Josedec & high priest is being promoted to king.

Besides, it's hierarchical theology - it's propositional myth

Secret Alias wrote: ..."Exoteric" relates to external reality as opposed to a person's thoughts or feelings.

Carrier's translation is not an exoteric rendering of Zechariah.

lol. As if Zechariah is reality.

You think angels are real?

Is Carrier's substitution of the Hebrew meaning of a name in a Greek text properly described as an exoteric rendering of the LXX? Would this be plain to any Greek reader? Would it have been plain to Philo? This is so dumb.

Or was the substitution of the meaning of the Hebrew name in an English translation of a Greek text agenda driven - i.e. to smash home Carrier's claim that the Jesus in Zechariah was an angel? The answer is obvious.

As such Carrier's claims to produce an exoteric rendering of LXX Zechariah are categorically disproved. The Bretton text is the exoteric rendering of the Greek not Carrier's.

Let's revisit this claim:

an 'exoteric' reading of Zechariah 3 and 6 would conclude the author originally meant the first high priest of the second temple, Jesus ben Jehozadak (Zech. 6.11 ; cf. Hag. 1.1), who somehow came into an audience with God, in a coronation ceremony (one would presume in heaven, as it is in audience with God and his angels and attended by Satan) granting him supreme supernatural power over the universe (Zech. 3.7).

Answer now - no it wouldn't.