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

[TedM]

to Ben,
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this:"“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul. But if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image"

"if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul" does say to me Philo was (or faked to be) unaware of the OT origin of that phrase with 'anatole'. And that phrase is here heard & spoken by a Jew.

Philo adds:

whom, in another passage

This implies to me that he knew that the 'behold, the man named Rises" was from a written passage and not simply something he had heard spoken by a Jew but knew nothing about where it came from.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
Well the two occurrences of followers or companions of Moses in Philo's works I know of are from:
1) a psalmist, written in a psalm.
2) somebody that Philo heard.
No prophetic writings here. So followers/companions of Moses would include all kind of Jews. And not necessarily from Philo's far past. However I would like to know about any other followers/companions/or_similar of Moses. That's too bad that Peter does not have a search function (free of charge from Google) for each group of writings, just like I have on top of my website:
http://historical-jesus.info/
My experience is scholars wrote a lot of crap and they have to be checked at every turns.

Written... by one of the sacred writers. See above.

But if heard from a contemporary of Philo, it is not from a text written in the far past by one of the sacred writers.

Yes, but only if applied to an ordinary human. Applied to an incorporeal being it is no longer to be considered novel in any era. He is saying that this is the kind of name that incorporeal beings have, not ordinary humans, and therefore East is an incorporeal being.

'novel appellation" is for anybody. Philo certainly did not say it was not novel for his incorporeal being. He acknowledged he is the one applying that appellation to the heavenly entity, without saying it was done before by others.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to TedM,

whom, in another passage

This implies to me that he knew that the 'behold, the man named Rises" was from a written passage and not simply something he had heard spoken by a Jew but knew nothing about where it came from.

No, Philo never wrote "behold, the man named 'Rises'" came from any passage. Instead he said he heard these words spoken from someone else. However "another passage" is more likely relative to what Philo wrote right before "'behold, the man named Rises":
"And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East [ge 2:8]"
and
"having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There [ge 11:2]"

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

could be. I don't know how we can say one way or the other. It seems awfully strange for him to be saying -- and giving any credence to -- someone simply uttering those words if he didn't really know the context of them. He's not an idiot.

[Bernard Muller]

to TedM,

could be. I don't know how we can say one way or the other. It seems awfully strange for him to be saying -- and giving any credence to -- someone simply uttering those words if he didn't really know the context of them. He's not an idiot.

He was not an idiot. He was a leader of the Jewish community in Alexandria.

someone simply uttering those words if he didn't really know the context of them

But that's what he implied. Furthermore Philo based his allegories from passages of the Pentateuch and very little from any other texts. Only a few brief mentions of some prophets (but never Zechariah). So he may not have been familiar with prophetic writings.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
Well the two occurrences of followers or companions of Moses in Philo's works I know of are:
1) a psalmist, written in a psalm.
2) somebody that Philo heard.
No prophetic writings here.

#2 is the instance of which we are currently speaking. Table it for now.

#1 too sharply distinguishes prophetic books from other books:

On Husbandry: "Thus, indeed, being a shepherd is a good thing, so that it is justly attributed, not only to kings, and to wise men, and to souls who are perfectly purified, but also to God, the ruler of all things; and he who confirms this is not any ordinary person, but a prophet, whom it is good to believe, he namely who wrote the psalms; for he speaks thus, 'The Lord is my shepherd, and he shall cause me to lack Nothing' (= Psalm 23.1/22.1 LXX)."
Who Is the Heir of Divine Things: "For well did one of the prophets say: 'He had rather live one day in the company of virtue, than ten thousand years in the shadow of Death' (= Psalm 84.10/83.11 LXX)."

Also, Isaiah is most certainly a prophet:

Questions and Answers on Genesis II: "On which account a certain prophet, the kinsman and friend of Moses, uttered an oracle of this kind, 'If the omnipotent Lord had not left us a seed, we should have been like blind and barren People' (= Isaiah 1.9)."

So followers/companions of Moses would include all kind of Jews.

Not necessarily. Not in On the Unchangeableness of God, for example: "For when this reason inclined to meditation and devoted to learning, was driven down from its more divine speculations, human and mortal opinions, then Joseph, the companion of the body, and of all the things which pertain to the body was born, being still but a youth, even though in the lapse of time he may become greyheaded, as being one who never listened to any older discourse or opinions, which the companions of Moses acquired as the most useful possessions for themselves and their disciples."

My experience is scholars wrote a lot of crap and they have to be checked at every turns.

How are you going to do better than they if you commit to positions on texts which you have not yet even thoroughly investigated? Committing to a particular meaning for "companion of Moses" in Philo, for example, after having discovered only two instances of it so far....

And not necessarily from Philo's far past. However I would like to know about any other followers/companions/or_similar of Moses.

Let us now untable the reference to what you are claiming is to a contemporary of Philo and set it next to the other references for comparison and contrast:

On Dreams: "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 65.9/64.10 LXX)."

On Mating: "And it is from this consideration, as it appears to me that one of the disciples of Moses, by name the peaceful, who in his native language is called Solomon, says, 'My son, neglect not the instruction of God, and be not grieved when thou art reproved by him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth; and scourgeth every son whom he Received' (= Proverbs 3.11-12)."

Questions and Answers on Genesis II: "On which account a certain prophet, the kinsman and friend of Moses, uttered an oracle of this kind, 'If the omnipotent Lord had not left us a seed, we should have been like blind and barren People' (= Isaiah 1.9)."

On the Confusion of Tongues: "As one of the friends of Moses, when praying, says in his hymns, 'Let the treacherous lips become Mute' (= Psalm 31.18/32.19 LXX)."

On the Confusion of Tongues: "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!' (= Zechariah 6.12)."

Philo certainly did not say it was not novel for his incorporeal being. He acknowledged he is the one applying that appellation to the heavenly entity, without saying it was done before by others.

It is as if you are not even reading the sentence. The name East is novel if it is applied to an ordinary human, but if it is applied to an incorporeal being it is fitting. Which "if" holds true for Philo?

No, Philo never wrote "behold, the man named 'Rises'" came from any passage. Instead he said he heard these words spoken from someone else.

One does not just read the scriptures; one hears them:

Matthew 5.21a: "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' (= Deuteronomy 5.17)...."

Luke 16.29: "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'"

Ted is right. Philo quotes one passage from Zechariah, and then he quotes another passage from elsewhere (ἑτέρωθι).

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

could be. I don't know how we can say one way or the other. It seems awfully strange for him to be saying -- and giving any credence to -- someone simply uttering those words if he didn't really know the context of them. He's not an idiot.

No need to back down, Ted. You are clearly correct on this point. Bernard is defending a practically indefensible position.

[iskander]

Josua the high priest is a sinner and a weak man :" that his sons married women unfit for the priesthood and he did not forbid them" (Sanhedrin 93a)

Zerubbabel's real name was " Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah." (Sanhedrin 38a)


In Haggai 2-23 , Zerubbabel is a messianic man.

Haggai 2-23- 23.On that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, My servant; says the Lord, and I will make you as a signet; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of Hosts.

Zech 3:8 and 6:12 refer to a man called "The Branch.". It is unclear whether or not "the Branch" refers to Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was the governor of Judah at the time of Zechariah, he was frequently associated with Joshua (Ezra 3:2, 3:8), and he is also described as the Temple builder (Zech 4:9).



Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 93a
The Sages said: They went up to Palestine, married and begat sons and daughters, as it
is written, Hear now, O Joshua the High Priest and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at.18 Now for which men was a wonder wrought? — Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.35 Now, surely it was not his wont to wear filthy garments! But this intimates that his sons married women unfit for the priesthood and he did not forbid them
(18) Zech. III, 8.

Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 38a
yet she1 did conceive standing.2 Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained3 [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath.4 Zerubbabel [was so called] because he was sown in Babylon.5 But [his real name was] Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.

[DCHindley]

Wow,

This thread is really careening into deep space!

Are there folks here who are really suggesting that author of Zechariah 6:12 has in mind some sort of celestial being? I didn't think people still used "angel dust" anymore, but horse tranquilizer is tranquilizer none the less. It makes it easier to shovel the horse s**t.

If the date for the utterance of the prophecy in the text can be trusted, the prophecies of Zechariah happened in 520/519 BCE. At this same time Haggai was also actively promoting Zerubbabel as one who will "overthrow the throne of kingdoms ... I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the LORD, and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the LORD of hosts."

However, while everyone knew what a governor was supposed to do, and the function he was to uphold, what was poor Joshua the High Priest supposed to do? He must have felt kind of "second rate" before this powerful new governor. Luckily, God knew how to cheer ol' Joshua up proper.

Per Haggai, "2:4 ... take courage, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest; take courage, all you people of the land, says the LORD; work, for I am with you, says the LORD of hosts, 2:5 according to the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit abides among you; fear not. 6 For thus says the LORD of hosts: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; 7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts."

So, a holy house decked out splendidly from the gifts of the nations, was in the works for Joshua the HP, as his reward. But was Joshua the HP worthy of this honor? In Zechariah: "3:7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here."

But there were other conditions:

"3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men of good omen: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch [lit. "bud", no definite article]. ... 4:11 Then I said to him, 'What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?' ... 4:14 ... 'These are the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth." ... 6:11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it upon the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest; 12 and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch [lit. "bud", no definite article]: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both."'

The last sentence, which I have so boldly bolded, is what the crown laid upon Joshua the HP's head signified to Zechariah's audience (presumably both Zerubbabel and Joshua).. He would co-rule with Zerubbabel. That's all that crown was meant to signify, that and as a symbol of God's promise to bring the wealth of the nations into the holy house. My paraphrase would be: "Rule the land of Yahud, Zerubbabel, and the house of God, Joshua, in harmony."

Whether they did so, historically, we know little. The book of Ezra implies that they did, but takes things only to the 6th year of Darius I (516/515 BCE), or the beginning of the 7th year, when the text becomes confused with talk about Ahasuerus [i.e., Xerxes I, 485-464 BCE] Ezr 4:6 and then jumps to the days of Artaxerxes [I?, 464-423 BCE] in Ezr 4:7. Darius, however, ruled for 36 years!

But behold! Here is the key to understanding, the door to wisdom:

Table of Dates

The following table, in my humble opinion, has all possible key dates in the history of the Jewish returns from the Babylonian exile: (Dates are given according to the Babylonian civil calendar, which begins in the spring, and which also is the same as the Jewish Sacred year).

A) Return under Sheshbazzar, prince of Judah:

1) Departure from Babylon and arrival in Yahud as Governor (Ezra 1:1-10 & 5:14).
• Sometime in 1st year of Cyrus (538/537 BC). Exact dates not recorded.

2) Started rebuilding the temple. Foundation set (Ezra 1:3 & 5:14-16).
• Sometime in 1st year of Cyrus (538/537 BC). Exact date not recorded.

B) Return under leadership of prince Zerubbabel and high priest Joshua:

1) Departure from Babylon and arrival in Yahud (Ezra 3:2).
• Sometime in 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). Exact dates not recorded.

2) The prophet Haggai exhorts Zerubbabel to resume rebuilding the temple (Hag 1:1f & Ezra 5:1-2).
• 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). 1st day of the 6th month = Aug 29, 520 BC.

3) Rebuilding of Temple, started by Sheshbazzar but not completed, resumes (Hag 1:15).
• 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). 24th day of the 6th month = Sep 21, 520 BC.

4) Alter erected and sacrifices made (Ezra 3:1-7).
• 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). 1st of the 7th month = Sep 27, 520 BC.

5) Feast of booths observed (Ezra 3:4) No day or month specified, but likely the 2nd day of the 7th month.
[See also the observance of this festival under the return of Ezra (Neh 8:13-18) in the 7th year of "Artaxerxes" (I = 458/457 BC; II = 398/397 BC; III = 352/351 BC) both of which are claimed to be the first observance since the exile began.]
• 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). 2nd - 8th day of 7th month, as did Ezra = Sep 28th - Oct 4th, 520 BC.
• 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). Traditionally held on 15th - 21st of the 7th month = Oct 11-17, 520 BC.

6) Zechariah's address was given (Zech 1:1 & Ezra 5:1-2).
• 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). 8th month = Oct/Nov, 520 BC.

7) Foundation of the temple laid, and official temple hierarchy reestablished (Ezra 3:8-13).
• 2nd year from arrival, (i.e., 3rd year of Darius I, 519/518 BC). 2nd month = Apr/May 519 BC.

8) The temple was completed (Ezra 6:15).
• 6th year of Darius I (516/515 BC). 3rd of Adar (12th month) = Mar 12, 515 BC.

For the returns under Nehemiah and Ezra, there are a couple of alternatives:
• The usual academic reconstruction puts Nehemiah's 2 returns under Artaxerxes I (445/444 BC) and Ezra's under Artaxerxes II (385/384 BC).
• The alternative favored by evangelicals also puts Ezra's return under Artaxerxes I. Artaxerxes III (352/351) did not rule long enough to be a possibility for Nehemiah, but is a candidate for Ezra. A ban on building of the city wall was in effect during the reign of “Artaxerxes” (Ezra 4:7-24a) but who made the attempt to build them that caused the ban is not stated.
• Comment: Ezra 4:21 suggests that this decree to stop construction happened before Nehemiah’s governorship. When Nehemiah established his Governorship, he then traveled to Babylon to seek a decree allowing rebuilding from "Artaxerxes." Nehemiah’s return was a result of such a decree. Nehemiah then completed the construction as fast as possible to prevent it from being ordered stopped again.

C) Return under Nehemiah:

1) Arrives as Governor of Yahud (Neh 2:1-11).
• 20th year of Artaxerxes I (445/444 BC). Nisan (1st Month) = Apr/May 445 BC.
• 20th year of Artaxerxes II (385/384 BC). Nisan (1st Month) = Apr/May or Oct/Nov 385 BC.

2) Completion of city wall in 52 days (Neh 6:15).
• 20th year of Artaxerxes I (445/444 BC). 25th of Elul (6th month) = Sep 30, 445 BC.
• 20th year of Artaxerxes II (385/384 BC). 25th of Elul (6th month) = Sep 29, 385 BC.

3) Nehemiah's recall to Babylon (Neh 13:6).
• 32nd year of Artaxerxes I (433/432 BC).
• 32nd year of Artaxerxes II (373/372 BC).

4) 2nd return of Nehemiah and possible limits for that governorship (Neh 13:6-7).
• Sometime between the 33rd and the final year of Artaxerxes I (spring 432 to winter 423 BC).
• Sometime between the 33rd and the final year of Artaxerxes II (spring 372 to winter 358 BC).

D) Return under Ezra:

1) Departure from Babylon for Jerusalem (Ezra 7:1-10)
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 1st of 1st month = Apr 8, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 1st of 1st month = Apr 5, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 1st of 1st month = Apr 6, 352 BC.

2) Resumes journey for Jerusalem (Ezra 8:31-32) after stopping at river Ahava to pick up Levites (Ezra 8:15-20).
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 12th of 1st month = Apr 19. 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 12th of 1st month = Apr 16, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 12th of 1st month = Apr 17, 352 BC.

3) Arrives at Jerusalem (Ezra 7:8-9).
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 1st of 5th month = Aug 4, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 1st of 5th month = Jul 31, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 1st of 5th month = Aug 2, 352 BC.

4) Public reading of Law (Neh 8:1-12).
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 1st day of 7th month = Oct 2, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 1st day of 7th month = Sep 28, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 1st day of 7th month = Sep 30, 352 BC.

5) Celebrates the feast of Booths.
The decision was made to celebrate the festival on the 2nd day of the 7th month. Neh 8:13-18.

[See also the observance of this festival under the return of Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezra 3:4) in the 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC), both of which are claimed to be the first observance since the exile began].
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 2nd - 8th day of 7th month = Oct 3-9, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 2nd - 8th day of 7th month = Sep 29-Oct-5, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 2nd - 8th day of 7th month = Sep 30-Oct 6, 352 BC.

The dates below are the traditional dates for this feast:
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 15th - 21st day of 7th month = Oct 17-23, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 15th - 21st day of 7th month = Oct 12-18, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 15th - 21st day of 7th month = Oct 14-20, 352 BC.

6) Ezra's speech exhorting Judeans to separate from foreigners (Neh 9:1-37).
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 24th day of 7th month = Oct 26, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 24th day of 7th month = Oct 21, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 24th day of 7th month = Oct 23, 352 BC.

7) Ezra decrees that all Judeans of Yahud divorce their foreign wives (Ezra 10:9).
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458/457). 20th of 9th month = Dec 19, 458 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (398/397). 20th of 9th month = Dec 16, 398 BC.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes III (352/351). 20th of 9th month = Dec 16, 352 BC.

I cannot divulge the name of the author, for his voice was foreseen by God from time immemorial, but only in the predestined day shall it become known to many, quenching the thirst of the many for wisdom, like dew that descends upon the dusty earth.

DCH <this is entirely ad-hoc, but crazy, yes?>

[MrMacSon]

Are there folks here who are really suggesting that author of Zechariah 6:12 has in mind some sort of celestial being?

Isn't the main proposal & argument that Philo proposed some sort of contemporaneous celestial being?