Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I don't realize why you have need of pointing out that I am not a scholar. I thought that it was clear from the beginning.
I am simply struck by the argument of the extreme improbability of the name 'Jesus' falling near to the mere possibility of his being Anatole (therefore being Logos via Philo and all the rest). (As it's extremely improbable that the same Roman governor that was pressed by Jews of Jerusalem to remove pagan idols was the same Pilate that was pressed by the same Jews to kill Jesus out of Jerusalem).

But I don't know if Philo was interested to Anatole or to Jesus in line of principle. I dont' know what was the cause and what the mere side effect in Philo (if the title ANATOLE or the name 'Jesus son of YHWH the Right' or the Anthropos alone).
Margaret Barker (arguing the link Anatolè=Jesus, too) wouldn't be a scholar, too, according to you words.

I lean toward the idea that while Philo may not have favored or cared about the name of the Messiah, some others who came to think the Messiah had already performed the act death and resurrection as revealed by scripture became interested in EVERYTHING about that Messiah that they could learn. One of those things would have been his name. Zechariah 6 increases the odds that one of the names being considered for that Messiah was Jesus.

Giuseppe wrote:Margaret Barker is another scholar that argues the identity Joshua HP=Anatole.

....

Margaret Barker (arguing the link Anatolè=Jesus, too) wouldn't be a scholar, too, according to you words.

Could I have the reference? Thanks.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:Margaret Barker is another scholar that argues the identity Joshua HP=Anatole.

....

Margaret Barker (arguing the link Anatolè=Jesus, too) wouldn't be a scholar, too, according to you words.

Could I have the reference? Thanks.

M. Barker, “The Two Figures in Zechariah,” HeyJ 18 (1977).

And this.

At any case, here I read a interesting case (an entire chapter devoted to this argument) for Anatole being nor Zorobabel neither Joshua, but only the future davidic Messiah. It's hard recognizing it by me, but I suspect that his thesis is right.

But not one ANCIENT witness? That's decisive

Find me an ancient witness and we'll talk ...

Philo's interpretation of the passage meaning a future redeemer might not be so crazy.

I am attracted by the solution of Van der Woude, who argues that (Dim DTD (contrary to tz»n ^JJ D'to) does not necessarily mean 'to place on the head', that is, 'to crown', but rather, by analogy with the Akkadian expression sakanu ina resi, 'to place at someone's disposal', 'to entrust'.99 This means that the two figures in Zech. 6:13, the Sprout and a priest next to his throne, are future persons https://books.google.ca/books?id=yHTu2E ... 22&f=false

That Joshua the high priest will serve the future redeemer may well be what Andrew was hinting at when he says that he suspects the passage we have is corrupt.

Giuseppe wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:Margaret Barker is another scholar that argues the identity Joshua HP=Anatole.

....

Margaret Barker (arguing the link Anatolè=Jesus, too) wouldn't be a scholar, too, according to you words.

Could I have the reference? Thanks.

M. Barker, “The Two Figures in Zechariah,” HeyJ 18 (1977).

And this.

Thanks.

Find me an ancient witness and we'll talk ...