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

[Giuseppe]

1) Zecharia says that Jesus son of Josedec receives the title ''Anatole''.
2) Philo says that ''Anatole'' is title of the archangelic Logos.
3) therefore: Jesus son of Josedec is the archangelic Logos

Just because two entities are applied with the same appellation does not mean these two entities are the same one.
In the Bible, God is often called "Lord". Jesus is also called "Lord". Shall we conclude it means God & Jesus are the same?

precisely that (that God and Jesus share in some way the same identity) is the conclusion of a prominent recent scholar I like: Crispin Fletcher-Louis.

Note that even Michael_BG agrees with me that Philo is allegorizing a mortal guy (hailed as Anatole) as the Logos, in order to harmonize his view with Zecharia's. The difference between my view and Michael's is that he doensn't think that the mortal guy hailed as Anatole is Jesus son of Josedec but another guy, while I are now more persuaded by MacKay (see above) that Jesus was that man hailed as Anatole).
Anatole is only a title, and a title doesn't exist per se. A title has need of a being that is described by that title. In Zecharia that being is a mortal guy (I think Jesus), in Philo that being is an angel. But what you don't understand (for ideological reasons, I fear) is that Philo cannot say: ''since now on, mr Zechariah is a total stupid and a false prophet when he said that a mortal guy was hailed as ANATOLE, because ANATOLE is only and only the LOGOS, is it clear? ''

1) Zecharia says that Jesus son of Josedec receives the title ''Anatole''. Not Zechariah, but God. And most likely not about Jesus, son of Josedec.

FALLACY OF POSSIBILITER. The consensus is divided on this. But I think MacKay is right. As his proof goes, If we see already in Melchisedec an high priest with a messianic role, then Jesus son of Josedec is put on the same trend (of having the sacerdotal power linked with the royal power by a same person). This is strongly expected in Philo, too, because Philo already allegorized Melchisedec (an high priest) as the Logos, therefore it's only natural that he did repeat the operation with Joshua son of Josedec (an high priest).

Certainly, if Philo would have studied 'Zechariah", he would know that "Rises" would most likely apply to Zerubbabel (4:9).

FALLACY OF POSSIBILITER. Here it's explained the reason:

As CFL himself notes, the imagery that surrounded the king in pre-exilic times passes to the high priest after the Exile. We can see this transition within the Book of Zechariah, where the epithets applied to Zerubbabel (most likely) in chapters 3 and 4 are transferred to the high priest Joshua by chapter 6. Although a joint Davidic and priestly rule is depicted at the end of chapter 4, chapter 6 sees Joshua as the lone figure crowned by the Lord. A transition from royal to priestly rule has been effected.

Even conceding you the (not probable) hypothesis that the original Zechariah had in mind Zorobabel as ANATOLE, by Philo's time, the guy hailed as ANATOLE is Jesus son of Josedec. Period.

[/b]
2) Philo says that ''Anatole'' is title of the archangelic Logos. NO, it is only an appellation which would fit Philo's incorporeal being.

As above. Philo cannot claim for himself the right of accusing Zechariah (or the companion of Moses) of being a false prophet (by hailing a mortal guy with the title reserved only to Logos). Philo cannot say: ''since now on, the companion of Moses in Zechariah 6:12-13 is a true LIAR, because ANATOLE is not Jesus neither Zorobabel''. If Philo had said this, he would be a perfect heretic.

3) therefore: Jesus son of Josedec is the archangelic Logos.Already addressed above. And how could Jesus son of Josedec, always described as an earthly human in the OT (with no pre-existence or post-existence), be also considered the archangelic Logos?

And how could Melkizedeck, always described as an earthly human in the OT (with no pre-existence or post-existence verbatim), be also considered the archangelic Logos BY PHILO?

What is impossible for you, it's entirely possible and probable for Philo.

[Giuseppe]

Philo's treatment of Melchizedek is considerably closer to Hebrews. The priest-king plays a minor role in his writings and is discussed at lengt only in Leg. 3.79-82. Like Hebrews, however, Philo pays no attention to any legendary material. Instead, he provides the same etymological analysis of Melchizedeck's name and title that we encounter in Hebrews. As Thompson observes, Philo even implies ''that Melchizedek is 'without parents', for he contrasts Melchizedeck to the Moabites and Ammonites whose parents are nous and aisthesis. These parallels suggest that the author may have been acquainted with Philo's reading of Melchizedek and adopted part of his analysis.
In chapter 6 I argued that the Christology of Hebrews is modelled on Philo's concept of the Logos. In that light it is noteworthy that Philo conceives Melchizedek as an image of the Logos just as Hebrews portrays him as 'a likeness' of Christ. This is the most significant parallel between Philo and Hebrews at this point, but also the most problematic one.

(Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews, by Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen, p. 147)

Melchizedek is a mortal guy, when taken letterally. Just as the mortal guy hailed as ''Anatole''.

[Ben C. Smith]

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

Maybe, but I would not know who. It seems to me that most are attributing the celestial being to Philo (whether alone or in concert with other Jewish exegetes), not to Zechariah.

[Giuseppe]

The note 76 of p. 35 of this 2015 book The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (Charlene McAfee Moss) confutes once for all the Bernard's argument (that Philo didn't allegorize a mortal guy as the Logos):

The fact that Philo did look for a human figure, the man, in his Num 24 exposition, prevents his interpreters from assuming that the man in Zech. 6 is “completely spiritualized”; see de Savignac, “Le Messianisme de Philon d'Alexandrie,” 320. Pace Hecht, “Philo and Messiah.”

(p. 35)

The second argumend of Bernard (that ANATOLE was Zorobabel) is confuted even if true:


source (click on the photo to read the entire image)

[Secret Alias]

Why do you ignore that no one in antiquity read the text as pointing to Joshua the high priest? Why isn't this important? The argument only develops once "Jesus" is established as the Son of God among Niceness Christianity

[Giuseppe]

But how can you say that ''no one in antiquity read the text as pointing to Joshua the high priest''?

You know already a political reason : Joshua is the Branch because in this way the high priest is a king, too, whereas all the previous kings have failed.

You know another possible reason: why the Egyptian Prophet was called 'Egyptian'? Because he learned magia in Egypt? Or because he was JOSHUA (son of Nun) redivivus?

Margaret Barker is another scholar that argues the identity Joshua HP=Anatole.
Prove to substitute in your rethorical question ''Melkizedek'' with Jesus the hig priest:

Why do you ignore that no one in antiquity read the text as pointing to Melchizedek the high priest? Why isn't this important? The argument only develops once "Melchizedek" is established as the image of the Son of God among Niceness Christianity.

Philo allegorized Melchizedek as the Logos.
Philo allegorized Joshua as the Logos.

The earliest Christians allegorized Melchizedek as Jesus (called Christ).
The earliest Christians (Gospel of John: precisely John 2:22 and 20:9 and the Star in Matthew being the same ANATOLE from where the Magi come) allegorized the guy hailed 'ANATOLE' as their same Jesus (called Christ).

The logical next step is near: there was already a impersonal generic title 'Jesus' for the Messiah. Not a cult, as says Carrier. But only a title.

A metaphor:

Julius Caesar was a mortal guy (just as Jesus HP in Zech and Joshua son of Nun).
Caesar became the title of emperors, declined in various languages: Kaiser, Czar, Caesarism, etc. (just as JESUS became the title of the future messiah or Logos, as well as Christ).

[Secret Alias]

Niceness = Nicene

[Giuseppe]

[DCHindley]

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?

No, actually I readily accept that Philo understood this to be an allegory for how the Godhead works, understood in a Platonic sort of way. Zechariah, on the other hand, I do not think had any such preconception(s).

Could Philo's concept of a Word/Reason within God have influenced early "Christian" development? Sure. Did it? I don't think so. Here's why: D T Runia published a two volume monograph, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (1983), which I believe the author has made available on the internet (there are PDF files @ http://www.scribd.com, I believe). After reading Runia, and referring to the works of Philo themselves, Philo was in love with Plato. However, he was also in love with his cultural heritage, and he felt that Plato must have somehow missed the mark (sinned) by suggesting that the entity who created the world (the Demiurge, or Craftsman) was not the same as the first principal (the One). So Philo reconfigures Platonism to allow him to keep his cultural God as both the One as well as the Demiurge. This is all accomplished by manipulating semantics and using allegorical interpretation. He allowed that God's Reason (the Logos) could be conceived much like an angel.

Of all the NT books that have been passed down to us only the gospel of John comes even close to talking of a Logos like this. I will also allow that high concept philosophical thought tended to circulate in less intellectual arenas (like the market place) in bowdlerized form, but there should still be some sort of echo of the higher plane thought in those bowdlerized forms that passed verbally from person to person, and which may end up reflected in written works by the bowdlerizers. I just cannot detect any of those traces.

DCH <I just learned how to spell "bowdlerize"!>

[DCHindley]

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

Maybe, but I would not know who. It seems to me that most are attributing the celestial being to Philo (whether alone or in concert with other Jewish exegetes), not to Zechariah.

Some were citing the "anatole" of the LXX as if it assumes an angelic being, so I guess they would be referring to the LXX Greek translators of the Minor Prophets (3rd century BCE to 1st century CE?). Sometimes I just got the impression that they might think that the idea of "Anatole" = angel captured the original intent of Zechariah's "tsemetch". Whatever the case, I am pretty sure that Philo's Logos played no part in a decision to translate tsemetch by anatole.

DCH