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

[Bernard Muller]

to TedM,

I"m baffled by this. Bernard, surely you know of the phrase 'typology fulfillment'? Of course it couldn't have been the same person, just as many of the prophecies were fulfilled in history long before Christianity came along, but that didn't keep the creative and desperate Jews from seeing a DEEPER and more complete FUTURE fulfillment since obviously the promised peace had NOT been fulfilled. Clearly early Christians did this, as they do today. As such this Jesus, son of Josedec could well have been seen as a 'type of' Messiah also named Jesus to come later. Again, 1 out of 25 males in 0AD were named Jesus according to the source I gave so we can't just excuse or reason it away too easily IMO.

Why do you bring that ''typology fulfillment'? How can you deduct that typology fulfillment was involved?
The rest of your post is just unevidenced supposition with very little possibility to be true.
Certainly we do not know about "creative and desperate Jews from seeing a DEEPER and more complete FUTURE fulfillment" assigning the name "Jesus" to their expected Messiah because of what they read in Philo's works.

Did you also turn up to be a Mythicist?

The coincidence can be very well explained: the high priest from the return of the first exile up to, at least, the rebuilding of the temple, was named Jesus son of Josedec. The man credited to have started Christianity was name also Jesus (of Nazareth OR son of Joseph). It happens the two first names are the same, but the name is not rare among Jews of these times. If you want to make a case about that, so be it.
Other mythicists made cases about the Christian Jesus being copied in part from another Jesus, such as Jesus the rustic would-be prophet in Jerusalem (ref: Carrier's OHJ) or another Jesus, one of the last temple high priests.

Clearly early Christians did this, as they do today.

Actually, Christians made a lot of out-of-context &/or cut-and-paste quotes from the OT. This is undeniable. But not to the extent as for the Jesus from Zechariah associated with the strictly incorporeal heavenly being of Philo.
And the first known one to have made the dubious connection is not a Christian, but a Mythicist: Carrier.
It seems that Mythicists are more desperate than Christians when finding evidence to support their beliefs.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

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.

It is not unparalleled in Philo. In On Dreams Philo refers to David (or the author of the Psalms) as a follower/companion of Moses.

Accordingly, one of the followers of Moses, having compared this speech to a river, has said in the Psalms, "The river of God was filled with Water;"{psalm 65:10.} and it is absurd to give such a title to any of the rivers which flow upon the earth.

Andrew Criddle

[robert j]

I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" (Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues, 62)

The selection of “companion” for the translation here may not be the best option.

The Greek term --- translated as “companion” above --- is ἑταίρων. In the version in this link, the term is translated as "disciple".
http://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo_ ... 261.45.xml

This Greek term has a complex of meanings ranging from “companion”, “disciple”, and “member of a religious guild”, to a “courtesan”. Obviously Philo wasn’t talking about a bed-partner of Moses.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 8tai%3Dros

As in English, the intended meaning of such a complex term is shaped for the reader by the context. In this context, “disciple” fits the best --- as used by the translator from the Loeb Classical Library version with the link provided here.

“Disciple” (or "follower") is appropriate for a contemporary follower, as well as for one a thousand years later.

[Secret Alias]

Companions of the now dead Moses in the hereafter, the company of prophets

[TedM]

to TedM,

I"m baffled by this. Bernard, surely you know of the phrase 'typology fulfillment'? Of course it couldn't have been the same person, just as many of the prophecies were fulfilled in history long before Christianity came along, but that didn't keep the creative and desperate Jews from seeing a DEEPER and more complete FUTURE fulfillment since obviously the promised peace had NOT been fulfilled. Clearly early Christians did this, as they do today. As such this Jesus, son of Josedec could well have been seen as a 'type of' Messiah also named Jesus to come later. Again, 1 out of 25 males in 0AD were named Jesus according to the source I gave so we can't just excuse or reason it away too easily IMO.

Why do you bring that ''typology fulfillment'? How can you deduct that typology fulfillment was involved?
The rest of your post is just unevidenced supposition with very little possibility to be true.
Certainly we do not know about "creative and desperate Jews from seeing a DEEPER and more complete FUTURE fulfillment" assigning the name "Jesus" to their expected Messiah because of what they read in Philo's works.

Bernard, you know I have a great respect for you and the work you've done, but I must confess I can't follow what your objection here is to what I've written. We KNOW that typology fulfillment was used by early Christians. That's not a question. Therefore, it very well may have also been used to CREATE Christianity from the beginning. That's all I'm saying. It's a hypothesis that IMO should be considered.

Actually, Christians made a lot of out-of-context &/or cut-and-paste quotes from the OT. This is undeniable. But not to the extent as for the Jesus from Zechariah associated with the strictly incorporeal heavenly being of Philo.

Philo associated the Branch with the son of God. If he thought the Branch was referring to Jesus the son of Josedec, which is certainly possible given the context, then the link is there.

And the first known one to have made the dubious connection is not a Christian, but a Mythicist: Carrier.

I'm not sure if that's true. I gave a Christian example earlier in the thread. Here's another one from 2009--the first one I checked on a quick Google search:
http://orthodoxsteve.blogspot.com/2009/ ... hrist.html :

There is another person in the Old Testament whose name is Joshua (or Jesus). He is a Jewish high priest who lived during the times of Zechariah (6th century B.C.). Like Joshua the Son of Nun, this Joshua, who is the son of Josedech, is also a type of Christ. In the Book of Zechariah, it says:...The very name of this high priest points prophetically to Jesus Christ. ....

edit: I see now he actually was linking via the clothing reference in Ch 3 -- even MORE dubious than Ch 6. Anyway, here's another one, from 2011: http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/ ... /name.html
If these guys could do it, and if Carrier could do it, why couldn't Philo do it too?

Did you also turn up to be a Mythicist?

no. I"m just exploring possibilities. As I wrote earlier, it is possible that Jesus himself was influenced by the Messianic teachings and expectations of his time. That would have only been amplified - perhaps greatly - had some folks been saying the Messiah's name would be 'Jesus'.

The coincidence can be very well explained: the high priest from the return of the first exile up to, at least, the rebuilding of the temple, was named Jesus son of Josedec. The man credited to have started Christianity was name also Jesus (of Nazareth OR son of Joseph). It happens the two first names are the same, but the name is not rare among Jews of these times. If you want to make a case about that, so be it.

This coincidence is only 'well explained' if it the name is highly common. As I've indicated, I think it was not common enough(only 1 out of 25 males were named Jesus) to write this off as a coincidence without seriously considering the possibility that it in fact was NOT a coincidence. That's what I'm doing.

[Bernard Muller]

to andrewcriddle,

It is not unparalleled in Philo. In On Dreams Philo refers to David (or the author of the Psalms) as a follower/companion of Moses.
Accordingly, one of the followers of Moses, having compared this speech to a river, has said in the Psalms, "The river of God was filled with Water;"{psalm 65:10.} and it is absurd to give such a title to any of the rivers which flow upon the earth.

Yes, it looks that "followers" or "companions" of Moses means just "Jews", in Philo's vocabulary. So I have to make amend on what I wrote.
However, in the same passage in "on Dreams", Philo identified the author of the phrase as a psalmist. There is no similar identification (as a prophet) for the author of “Behold, the man named Rises!”, just that he is a companion of Moses (that is a Jew).
Furthermore, Philo indicated the phrase about the river of God is to be found in the Psalms, but gave no indication about the text where "Behold, the man named Rises!" was found. Actually, Philo did not say that was written, only heard. And in Zec 6, the phrase is said by God himself, not Zechariah or any other Jew.
There are many discontinuities about assigning the Jesus of Zechariah to the incorporeal being of Philo. We would need extraordinary small tunnel vision to come to that.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

It's a hypothesis that IMO should be considered.

That hypothesis is not evidenced and most likely is not true. They are just too many things against it.

Philo associated the Branch with the son of God. If he thought the Branch was referring to Jesus the son of Josedec, which is certainly possible given the context, then the link is there.

A slim possibility is not evidence. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Philo thought the Branch was referring to Jesus the son of Josedec. I also think that Philo was not so dumb and would take the Branch as being Jesus, the son of Josedec, according to Zechariah 3 & 6.

If these guys could do it, and if Carrier could do it, why couldn't Philo do it too?

These guys (obviously Christian apologists of the worst kind, trying to find ancient prophecies which Jesus eventually fulfilled) do not involve Philo. But you do. As Carrier did (from http://historical-jesus.info/17.html):

>> On a debate with Mark Goodacre on Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable here, at 47:45 in the broadcast,
Carrier said: “We do have a reference to a pre-existent being named Jesus who was the first born son of God, who was the high priest of the celestial temple, just like Hebrews explains, and was also called the logos, the word of God, and this is in Philo… Philo refers to this deity several times, this - deity's perhaps the wrong word, he's an archangel in Philo's vocabulary - who’s named Jesus.” <<

After in OHJ:
>> "In fact, the Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God' called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews ; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6),
[Note: I certainly do not agree that Philo, or any others, connected Philo's Logos with a mortal man or celestial figure named Jesus in Zechariah. There is no evidence for that]
and therefore 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." <<
Just hogwash

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

A slim possibility is not evidence. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Philo thought the Branch was referring to Jesus the son of Josedec.

We don't have any evidence either way! He simply doesn't address it, and why should he? What difference would the name make to him? But to someone else--perhaps someone named Jesus or with a son named Jesus it might make a difference..or to followers of someone named 'Jesus'..or to some who heard of a rumor about crucified Jesus being seen alive again during the Passover feast...or to followers of someone named -- Philo, or some mixture of all of the above. You didn't address the 1 in 25 odds..some may have seen the name as significant, doesn't mean Philo had to.

gotta run.

[Michael BG]

Many people have seen the parallels between the language of Philo and the language used in some New Testament documents.
However neither Zechariah nor Philo use the name “Jesus”.

You are correct about Philo. But Zechariah LXX uses Ἰησοῦς, which is the Greek rendering of Joshua, the Latin transliteration of which is Iesus, which gives us Jesus.

Ben.

I apologise I was wrong because Zechariah in the Greek does have someone called “Jesus”.
It seems in the words of Fangorn I was being “hasty”.
I had checked an English version of the Septuagint regarding “Branch/Sprout” in Zech 6:12, but that translation seems faulty now and I will try to remember this.
I am not sure I can claim in my defence that I was just referring to an angelic being called Jesus.
Also I seemed to have missed some earlier posts when I made that post.
Thank you Ben for posting Carrier’s Elements 6 and 40.

Hopefully we all can agree that Philo does not have a heavenly being or angel called Jesus.

The New Testament writers quote lots of Old Testament passages, but none quote Zech 6:11-12. I believe the closest is Hebrews 8:1bc in the list linked to by iskander:
“we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,”

The author of Hebrews links Christ and the high priest in 9:8a
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come”

I remember vaguely reading that Jewish Messianic beliefs included a Priestly Messiah as well as a Kingly Messiah, but I can’t remember what the evidence is, or if it is only the Dead Sea Scrolls.

MrMacSon quoted Zech 3:8 ending with the word “Branch” I assume the RSV version, but the word in the Hebrew is the same as in 6:12 – צמח (tsemach) = sprout or bud.

The Septuagint version is:

“Now listen, Jesus, the high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For the men are diviners. For behold, I bring forth my slave (or servant) the Shoot (or Dawn).”

Therefore if Carrier is correct and early Christians found the name Jesus here and so created Jesus I would expect some New Testament texts to use this text and apply them to either Christ in heaven or Jesus on earth.

Both Matthew and Luke use the English phrase “bring forth son” Mt 1:23 and Lk 1:31 and the Greek is τέξεται υἱόν, and τέξῃ υἱόν, and not close to ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἄγω τὸν δοῦλόν μου ᾿Ανατολήν· as at the end of Zech 3:8. And this might be the closest any New Testament text gets to Zech 3:8.

Michael Turton asserts that “Zechariah was a key prophet for early Christianity and for the writer of Mark”.

I found a list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, but didn’t see these three verses used.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
It only found six from Zechariah there, but others have found at least a couple more in Mark, but they are all in the second half of Zechariah.

There is a PhD dissertation The interpretation of Zechariah 3, 4 and 6 in the New Testament and early Christianity by Chan-Kok Wong that might shed some light on this issue, but it doesn’t appear to be on the internet.

Shouldn’t we expect somewhere in the New Testament something along the lines of “Take silver and gold and make crowns and set them upon the head of Jesus Christ” if this part of Zechariah influenced the Jesus story?

And as we don’t, can’t we safely say that it is unlikely that the name Jesus in Zechariah influenced Christianity, while other parts of Zechariah did and so did Philo?

[Giuseppe]

Hopefully we all can agree that Philo does not have a heavenly being or angel called Jesus.

Hopefully we all can agree that Philo does have a guy in Zechariah that is allegorized (by Philo) with his heavenly being or angel.


That guy was named Jesus son of Iosedec.


Only a Christian apologist cannot like the following difference, at this point of the discussion:

Bernard:

Philo sees that a companion of Moses calls a guy (named Jesus) with the title of the Logos and says that that companion of Moses is wrong (because Anatolè is only the Logos).

Giuseppe:

Philo sees that a companion of Moses calls a guy (named Jesus) with the title of the Logos and says that that companion of Moses was saying really that the guy Jesus is only an allegory of the Logos (because Anatolè is only the Logos).


At the light of the fact that for Philo the mortal guy Melchisedec is the allegory of the eternal Logos, why do you deny that the same allegory works with Jesus son of Josedec ?

And you can't deny that even the Christians allegorized Melchisedec.