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

[MrMacSon]

We are talking about a narrative developed from a narrative ...

[Giuseppe]

For Philo, Jesus son of Josedec is made an allegory of the Logos, in order to make the Logos have the title Anatole'.

1) Jesus son of Josedec is the Anatole';
2) the Anatole' is title of the Logos, for Philo;
3) therefore: "Jesus" is the name of the Logos.

But is Philo allegorizing Jesus because he was interested to the title Anatole' for his Logos?
Or is Philo emphasizing that Anatole' is only the Logos because he was interested to make Jesus an allegory of the Logos?

I'm sorry, but I have not enough evidence to answer to this question.

[Secret Alias]

But jesus the high priest is never identified as the high priest until the second or third centuries when it is used to align with orthodox Christianity. It is not a natural reading of the text

[Giuseppe]

I agree and recognize (against Carrier) that Philo has quasi zero utility as evidence of a mythicist pre-Christian cult of Jesus. Even if I think that Philo allegorized Jesus (as just as he allegorized Melchisedec) as the celestial Logos.
I'm only curious, about Philo, to know what he said about the future Messiah. Was 'Christ' a title of the Logos, too?

[Giuseppe]

Maybe we shouldn't ignore this article:

WAS THERE A "MESSIAH-JOSHUA" TRADITION AT THE TURN OF THE ERA?

by Robert A. Kraft

2. Also significant for the present discussion is a lesser-
known IHSOUS figure who is frequently mentioned in the
later books of the Jewish Scriptures, Joshua the son of
Jehozadak, and the high priestly associate of Zerubbabel and
Nehemiah during the return of the Jews from Babylon and the
rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra-Neh; Zach; Hagg). It may well be
that this IHSOUS was a member of the rather extensive
division of the priesthood which was also know as "the house of
IHSOUS" (cp. 1 Chr 24.11, Ezra 2.36, 40; Neh 7.39, 1 Esd
5.24). In any case, IHSOUS the high priest is thrust into
the apocalyptic floodlights in Zech 3-6, where he is pictured in
a court scene standing before the Angel of the Lord, with the
adversary Satan opposing him. Satan is rebuked by the Lord, and
IHSOUS is called "a brand plucked from the fire" -- and is
commanded to remove his filthy clothing and to put on apparel
prepared for him by the Lord.

After the Angel challenges IHSOUS to walk in the way
of YHWH, as a condition for fulfilling the role of judge and
leader in the reconstructed Jerusalem, the following promise is
given: "Hear now, O IHSOUS the high priest,...for behold,
I will bring forth my servant the "Branch" [Old Greek
ANATOLH/ = rising/sprouting]...." In the following
context, the "Branch" seems to refer to Zerubbabel, and in 4.14,
the seer receives a vision of "two olive branches" which
symbolize "the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the
whole earth" -- apparently IHSOUS and Zerubbabel. A
little later, the seer is told to make a crown and set it on the
head of IHSOUS the high priest, and to say to him "Behold
a man whose name is Branch ANATOLH = rising] -- he
shall rise out of his place and he shall build the temple of
YHWH... and shall sit and rule on his throne, and the council of
peace shall be between them both...."

As the critics point out, the present form of this last
passage is somewhat corrupted. Apparently it originally spoke of
crowns for both IHSOUS and Zerubbabel, the two
anointed leaders [Messiahs], whereas now it only speaks of
IHSOUS. How this corruption came about is impossible to
say with any assurance. In any event, it exists in all known
Jewish Scriptures versions, including MT and Old Greek, and thus
is clearly of pre-Christian origin. The texts known to the
Church Fathers and Rabbis alike probably all identified
IHSOUS most closely with the "Branch" of Zech. 6.

(my bold)

[MrMacSon]

But jesus the high priest is never identified as the high priest until the second or third centuries when it is used to align with orthodox Christianity. It is not a natural reading of the text

Not a 'natural reading' of which text" ??

These biblical narratives likely 'evolved' - they likely to be the result of 'cumulative elaboration'

[MrMacSon]

Maybe we shouldn't ignore this article:

WAS THERE A "MESSIAH-JOSHUA" TRADITION AT THE TURN OF THE ERA?

by Robert A. Kraft

There's several interesting points in that article/text

eg.

"... was there a pre-Christian Jewish expectation of a "messiah-Joshua" figure?
The methodological conundrum presented by such a query should be fairly obvious:
once we have Christians proclaiming that their Joshua/Jesus is Messiah, and defending the claim
in part with reference to Jewish traditions, it is difficult to determine from the data that has survived
by means of the Christian transmission filters whether such a picture of a Joshua/Jesus Messiah is a Christian creation or not.
And most of the data has come to us by means of the Christian filtering process.
Thus many of the clearest pieces of evidence are among the most suspect.

"It is not surprising that Christian interpreters should rather quickly capitalize
on the name identity between their Joshua/Jesus Messiah and the successor of Moses
in "Jewish" tradition, broadly defined so as to include Samaritan.
They also picked up on other Joshua/Jesus figures, especially the high priestly personage in the Zechariah materials.
Our earliest extensive witness to these developments is Justin, a non-circumcized Greek speaking native of the Palestinian Samaritan area.
Later authors - including Clement and Origen "of Alexandria" - developed the theme in their own ways."

[MrMacSon]

That whole article is interesting -

• WAS THERE A "MESSIAH-JOSHUA" TRADITION AT THE TURN OF THE ERA?
  
  by Robert A. Kraft [originally 1961/62, Manchester England]
  copyright Robert Kraft (long version, IOUDAIOS, June 1992)
  copyright Robert Kraft (short version, 09 July 1992)
  
  coding:
  • <g>...</g> = Greek
    <h>...</h> = Hebrew
    <l>...</l> = Latin
    <f>...</f> = other foreign language
    <s>...</s> = ancient source
    <m>...</m> = modern source
    <e>...</e> = emphasis
    <block>...</block> = indented block
  Short Version: for International Melbourne Congress, July 1992
  
  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/ ... ity/Joshua

The conceptual and terminological context that emerges from such a study includes references to

• * the "prophet like Moses,"
  * the "angel" who arises to lead God's children out of the desert & into their promised terminus, & who somehow bears God's "name",
  * the victor in the visible and "hidden" battle with the diabolic Amalek, and
  * to the high priestly anointed partner with Zerubbabel (Zech 4.14),

among others.

The pre-Christian data that relate, or might be made to relate, to this picture are of both a general and a specific sort, and include:

• --evidence of a relatively old depiction of Joshua/Jesus as the expected successor and "prophet like Moses" (Dt 18.15; see LAB) mentioned in the deuteronomic tradition, a picture already somewhat neutralized by the deutoronomist in the closing passages of the preserved Pentateuch ("no prophet like Moses has arisen" Dt 34.10). There may also be some relationship here to the protecting and guiding "angel" of Exodus 13.20ff, in whom is God's name;
  
  --evidence that Joshua/Jesus somehow fits into the developing pattern or patterns of "two messiahs,"
  one a military (later royal) savior; and the other priestly, like Moses and Aaron.
  A Samaritan tradition designates Joshua/Jesus as the "scepter" that "arises" and the priest Phineas as the "star" in the "star and scepter" dyad of Balaam's oracle in Num 24.17.
  This material is complicated all the more by the appearance later in Jewish biblical tradition (Zech 1-6) of a high priestly Joshua/Jesus, side by side with a royal "messianic" counterpart (Zech 4.14), opposed by Satan (3.1) and somehow connected or identified with the figure of one called "branch" or (in Greek) "rising" = A)NATOLH (3.8, 6.12);
  
  --evidence of connections between the Joshua/Jesus conflict with Amalek and the development of the idea of a dying Messiah son of Ephraim and/or Joseph, where in the last days God's agent finally and completely overcomes Amalek/Satan and then dies. Note that the Joshua/Jesus who first confronted Amalek in the pentateuchal tradition is described as an Ephraimite (Nm 13.8), and the Joshua/Jesus of Zechariah's vision(s) is introduced as in conflict with Satan;
  
  --evidence of apocalyptic associations between a future heroic figure and heavenly portents (sun and moon motionless), or connections (the east = the arising one) similar to those noted in some of the Joshua/Jesus traditions in the Hexateuch (Josh 10.12ff) in Zechariah (3.8, 6.12), and perhaps elsewhere.

At the specific level, we have such tantalizing passages as:

• --Sirach 45.1ff, where the name of Joshua/Jesus is explicitly connected to his role as "savior" of God's elect.
  
  --Samaritan Asatir 10.45, on Num 24.17, where Phineas is the "star to arise from Jacob" and Joshua/Jesus is the "scepter," in a tradition not sympathetic to Davidic messianic expectations;
  
  --Sibylline Oracles 5.256ff, with its reference to the "noblest of the Hebrews who caused the sun to stand still" and who will "come from the sky" in the last times;
  
  --Habakkuk 3.13 in some ancient interpretations including the anonymous Greek "sexta" version, which reads "you went out to save your people, by Joshua/Jesus your Messiah" (in the context of a reference to the staying of the sun and moon -- Hab 3.11);
  
  --4 Ezra 7.28f in some Latin MSS, where the victorius Messiah Joshua/Jesus dies at the transition to the new world.

This rapid survey does not cover all the pieces of evidence from early Jewish sources that might be interpreted as pointing to the existence of some sort of second <g>IHSOUS</g> messianology. One might, for example, interrogate closely the background to the Philonic <g>LOGOS</g> doctrine, which at many points seems to be a reinterpretation of Jewish scriptural passages that often carried eschatological significance within ancient Judaism; notice that Philo sees the <g>LOGOS</g> in the <g>AGGELOS</g> of Ex 23.21 (Qu Ex II.13, MigrAbr 174, Agric 51), in Melchizedek who is both king and priest in Gen 14.18 (LegAlleg 3.79ff), in the <g>A)NATOLH/</g> of Zech 6.12 (the eldest son and firstborn of the father, Conf 62f.), and even in Phineas (Conf. 57), among others. [See also SpecLeg 1.64f on Dt 18.15ff.] Throughout the writings of Philo, eschatology is conspicuous by its almost complete absence. Is it possible that in the presumed de-eschatolization of Judaism, Philo and/or his tradition has used some exegetical materials that once were connected with our proposed Joshua/Jesus messianology?
.

[iskander]

Another messianic prophecy:

32. Lev. 1:2-9 His sacrifice a sweet smelling savor unto God Ephesians 5:2

In this prophecy Jesus is identified with a burnt offering.
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org ... ecies.html

TARGUM JONATHAN TO ZECHARIAH
Chapter Three
8. Hear now, High Priest Joshua, you and your companions sitting before you—Behold! They are worthy men to have these miracles performed for them. For behold! I will bring my servant the Messiah and he will be revealed!
http://clas-web.uncc.edu/religiousstudi ... hariah.htm



(3:8): ‘Hearken now, Yehoshua, you and your colleagues.’ In my opinion they are ‘the standing ones’ he mentioned above. ‘for they are men of omen.’ For they are like a sign for Israel, as in the verse: ‘I am like a sign for many’ (Ps 71:7). And from them he learns the message ‘for behold Me bringing My servant Branch’; this is the messiah.
DANIEL AL-QŪMISĪ ON ZECHARIAH
Translated from I. D. Markon, ed., Pitron shenem ‘asar (Jerusalem: Meqitse Nirdamim, 1957), 62-76. The siglum [...] indicates a lacuna in the manuscript.

http://clas-web.uncc.edu/religiousstudi ... hariah.htm

The messiah is and was a central part of Jewish religious life .It is very easy to find fulfilled prophecies ...

[MrMacSon]

Although I have no real desire to do so in the light of the involved and only partial investigation presented above, I feel that I should try to offer some kind of tentative concluding synthesis as my token of appreciation for your patience.

(1) The clear-cut evidence is slim; but enough to suggest the possibility -- I think it a clear probability -- that some section of pre-Christian Judaism (but apparently not the "main line" Judaism that survived) had developed something like what I have called a 'second Joshua messianology' -- or perhaps 'scraps of second Joshua messianologies' ?

(2) The most probable environment for the development of this messianological thought would seem to be the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim-Joseph) mediated by primitive Samaritan eschatology and perhaps filtered into hellenistic Judaism by means of the sizeable Samaritan element at Alexandria. {evidence??}

(3) When, in its early stages of development, the Christian community absorbed members who were familiar with aspects of such a <g>IHSOUS</g> messianology, with its suffering/dying Messiah and its priestly Messiah (originally of the Phineas type, but in later development identified with <g>IHSOUS</g> the high priest), it could not help but influence Christian interpretations of <g>IHSOUS XRISTOS</g>. This influence was rather limited with respect to most of the NT literature, which originated mainly in North and Western Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and the West; in the literature influenced by Alexandria and possibly Central Palestine and Eastern Syria, however, the second Joshua messianology is more apparent and from such beginnings it came to cast its shadow over the whole of the Christian world through the second, third, and fourth centuries.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/ ... ity/Joshua