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

[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.

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.

You may be right, and someone was doing that; this thread has been hard to keep up with, so I may have missed it.

[iskander]

The Christian Bible

Anatole in the NT
https://billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/anatole


Anatole in the OT
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/zec003.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/zec006.htm
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id716.html
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id713.html

Greek Word Study Tool

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 9natolh%2F

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
Thanks for the additional examples appearing in Philo's works.
However, these quotes do not prove anything, more so that Philo was alluding to Zechariah in 6:12.

First I agree Philo considered a psalmist as being also a prophet sometimes ('On Husbandry', 'Who Is the Heir of Divine Things') but not all the times ('On Dreams', 'On the Confusion of Tongues').
But that comment is not relevant because Zechariah is not a psalmist.
Almost every time Philo brings the expression companions/friend/kinsman/followers/disciples of Moses, he also specified the quote is from a psalmist (also prophet or not),or/and from a psalm or hymn, or a prophet.
But there are 3 exceptions:
1) 'On Mating': But Philo quoted a proverb, whose author is anonymous (so, understandably, no further identification of the author). Anyway here we are not dealing with a prophetic saying, showing that disciple of Moses is not necessarily a prophet.
2) 'On the Unchangeableness of God'. Well, those companions of Moses are not specified to be prophets (they could be just proto-Jews) and Joseph is accused not to have listened to their discourse and opinions. Here we are: These "companions of Moses" are not necessarily writers also but most likely meant to be contemporaries of Joseph (but not listened by that Joseph).
3) 'On the Confusion of Tongues': Same as for 2). This one of the "companions of Moses" was heard by Philo uttering (speaking) a particular saying. That can only mean that saying was known verbally then by Philo. If Philo read it from Zecariah, he would not have used the same words, but given some further indication (such as "prophet", "Zechariah"), as he did for the psalms and prophetic writings he quoted.

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?

"It is fitting" does not mean it is not a novel appellation regarding Philo's incorporeal being. I do not see any relationship here. "novel appellation"? Yes, as far as I know, nowhere in the Jewish scriptures the appellation "Rises" has been applied to a heavenly Deity.

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.'"

In these days, most people were illiterate and therefore any religious education had to be verbal/oral. So the 'heard" and 'hear".
But Philo was not illiterate. He did not have to learn about the saying by hearing it as showing in the book of 'Zechariah'. Actually, the way he presented the saying shows he was ignorant (or faked ignorance) of its ultimate origin. Likely Philo read 'Zachariah', even several times. But by the time he wrote 'On the Confusion of Tongues', it is highly possible he forgot about most of its content. We cannot expect Philo to remember every lines of the Jewish scriptures, more so because he did not seem to be too interested about the prophetic writings.

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

Philo did not give any indication he quoted one passage from Zechariah. Instead he gave several indications he got that "very novel appellation" from a contemporary Jew, verbally.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

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

I always thought: yours, not mine, is a practically indefensible position.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

"It is fitting" does not mean it is not a novel appellation regarding Philo's incorporeal being. I do not see any relationship here. "novel appellation"? Yes, as far as I know, nowhere in the Jewish scriptures the appellation "Rises" has been applied to a heavenly Deity.

You did not answer my question. Philo gave two "if" statements coupled by a "but":

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, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

Which of these "if" statements held true for Philo? Did Philo think that the appellation "East" was being applied to an ordinary human with a body and a soul, or did Philo think that the appellation was being applied to an incorporeal being?

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

One issue is that Philo was certainly using the LXX the Septuagint.
In the Masoretic Hebrew of Zechariah 6 (which is IMHO probably corrupt) it is possible to regard the branch/shoot/rising as referring to Joshua the High Priest.
In the Septuagint this is almost impossible

11 And thou shalt take silver and gold, and make crowns, and thou shalt put [them] upon the head of Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest; 12 and thou shalt say to him, Thus saith the Lord Almighty; Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord. 13 And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between [them] both.

καὶ λήψῃ ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον καὶ ποιήσεις στεφάνους καὶ ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦ μεγάλου
καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτόν τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ καὶ ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀνατελεῖ καὶ οἰκοδομήσει τὸν οἶκον κυρίου
αὶ αὐτὸς λήμψεται ἀρετὴν καὶ καθίεται καὶ κατάρξει ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔσται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ βουλὴ εἰρηνικὴ ἔσται ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων

Andrew Criddle

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

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).

Ok, for Melchisedec, but there is no evidence he did so for Jesus, son of Josedec. Philo even did not name that Jesus. How could he allegorize him?
Philo allegorized many, but that does not mean he also allegorized somebody he did not even mention.

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.

How do you know what I bolded?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

You did not answer my question. Philo gave two "if" statements coupled by a "but":

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, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

Which of these "if" statements held true for Philo? Did Philo think that the appellation "East" was being applied to an ordinary human with a body and a soul, or did Philo think that the appellation was being applied to an incorporeal being?

I frankly do not know what you make out of these two "if" and the "but" in regard of supporting your case. What do you see in them?
The two "if" introduce a supposition for each one, which are Philo's own doing.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

You did not answer my question. Philo gave two "if" statements coupled by a "but":

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, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.

Which of these "if" statements held true for Philo? Did Philo think that the appellation "East" was being applied to an ordinary human with a body and a soul, or did Philo think that the appellation was being applied to an incorporeal being?

I frankly do not know what you make out of these two "if" and the "but" in regard of supporting your case. What do you see in them?
The two "if" introduce a supposition for each one, which are Philo's own doing.

I will try one more time.

Philo suggests that the man called East can be either an ordinary human being (with both body and soul) or an incorporeal (bodiless) being, right? He says that, if (ἐὰν) the man is an ordinary human being, then his name (East) is a novelty. But (δὲ) he adds that, if (ἐὰν) the man is incorporeal, then his name (East) is felicitous indeed. So which is it? Which does Philo think the man is, ordinary or incorporeal? Which of the two options does Philo think is the case?

[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?

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).

That's my point - this is about what Philo 'understood' (by 'contemporaneous' I meant *contemporaneous to Philo*)