Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

It is so disappointing to see humanity as an entirely self-interested slovenly lot. But that's the way it is.

The most obvious is that the Mandaean priests were called Nasorenes and the Mandaeans have nothing to do with the idiotic possibilities you've outlined.

What does it matter? Who has proved that the Mandaeanism did originate in the I CE? This is another of yours possibiliter fallacy, of the kind you make only because of your excessive love for the 'lost Christian tribes'' (that probably weren't even Christians).

Epiphanius likely knows of these sectarians (Panarion 29 1 1) again with no obvious connection to David.

Ephipanius is based on Acts of Apostles, where the pharisees accuse the christians of being subversive 'nazarenes'. In turn, Acts makes explicit the bad connotation associated to the inhabitants of Nazaret (whose blindness didn't make them recognize Jesus as the Son of God), because it seems be clearly a bad thing be called 'nazarenes' in Acts. The reason is political: who claims davidic lineage is suspected to be anti-Roman. The same reason for which the Desposyni are persecuted by Domitian according to the traditio. It's very risk to base on Ephipanius to know if these Nazarenes called themselves in that way. Same problem with 'ebionites'.

Stupid on top of stupid on top of stupid. Self-professed 'mythicists' should be banned from academia until they learn an ancient language. The root of the Mandaean terminology is 'to guard' i.e. the priests 'guarded' the secrets of their tradition - a point not even considered in your amateur study.

I insist that mandaenism is post-gospels, post-Christianity, post-all. And you not even consider that the negative meaning of the term is precisely ''to guard'' the rigid observance of the Torah, that makes the Nazarenes radical observers (of themselves and of others) of the Torah, as the legend of Paul the persecutor, 'full of zeal for Judaism'. Therefore it's more probable that who coined the term referred to people at plural did use it as an insult. But that negative meaning doesn't exclude the positive meaning (that Nazarene means both 'of the branch/shoot of David' and 'Rising, Growing' of the Messiah, via Zech 6:12).

You don't consider that:
1) Nazarene is a positive term only when referred to the single true Messiah (i.e. Jesus called Christ)
2) Nazarenes assumes after Mark and Acts of Apostles a negative meaning (but it's already implicit by definition of 'inhabitants of Nazaret' in Matthew) as anti-Catholic 'Judaizer observers'' (even Jesus being such in Mark before he went to purify his sins from John the Baptist).

Experts on Philo agree with me:

I quoted an expert on Philo - precisely one that proves that Zech 6:12 was considered a messianic prophetic text by Philo - to make my case on Nazaret.

Now this opens more possibility of further research:

1) Philo is based on Zech 6:12 to make the man hailed ANATOLE a symbol of the archangelic Logos.

2) Matthew 2:23 is based on Zech 6:12 to make the man hailed ANATOLE the same Jesus called Christ.

A FACT: ''Joshua son of Josedec'' appears in Zech 6:12 the symbol of the distinct man hailed ANATOLE (the future messiah).

It cannot be a mere coincidence that in the case 2 Joshua son of Josedec and Jesus (called Christ) share the same name. This implies that Joshua son of Josedec was considered by Matthew 2:23 a symbol of the future Jesus.

Could Philo see ''Joshua son of Josedec'' a symbol of the his archangelic (and messianic) Logos, too?

This possibility becomes more probable when we have recognized already evidence of well 2 authors (resp.: the original Zech 6:12 and Matthew 2:23) that had made precisely that simbolism (Joshua son of Josedec symbol of the future crowned Messiah hailed ANATOLE).

Therefore: Philo was not indifferent to the fact that in the original Zech 6:12 the symbol of the future messiah hailed ANATOLE is just JESUS son of Josedec.

Am I now actually witnessing an apparition of the aerial battle between Simon Magus and Simon Peter over Rome?

DCH (working off a bit of "flex" time)

Basically it comes down to this Giuseppe. This idea of yours is only yours. It comes from your mind and imagination and has no support from ancient witnesses - only your mind and imagination - and your mind and imagination has been demonstrated to have no worth whatsoever.

The idea that a moronic theory developed by an Italian blogger who can't read Greek or Hebrew better explains how Philo interpreted Zechariah 6.12 than Philo himself or his contemporaries is utterly laughable. The obvious answer is that Philo does not mention an angel named Jesus because Philo did not know about an angel named Jesus. Instead his interpretation of Zech 6.12 focused on the angel being the heavenly anthropos mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 in conjunction with the anatole. As Alan Segal (a complete slouch when compared with Giuseppe the Italian blogger's erudition but second best is all I can provide) notes

Philo concentrates on the relationship between the logos, the anthropos and hiereus: Agr. 51; Quis Her. 119, Som. i, 215; Conf. 146, see also Fug. 72, Det. 83, QG i, 4, Conf. 41, Qnis Her. 230-31. See also QG., 92, Conf. 62, 63 where all themes (i.e. logos and anthropos) converge - https://books.google.com/books?id=LRzCB ... 22&f=false

Gee I wonder whom we should believe a radical atheist polemical writer and his Italian Sancho Panza or a real scholar (and I know this matters to Giuseppe) who isn't 'Christian'. The obvious and best answer to the 'mystery' of the angel mentioned by Philo in his treatment of Zechariah is that he is a well known angel 'popular in apocalyptic literature' according to Segal who is named in the LXX as anthropos which in the original Hebrew as, as ... what's that word again ...

Mythicism would be better off without activist scholars. If the proposition that Jesus was a celestial being is true it will triumph because it is true and not because adherents embrace bad readings of ancient texts in order to 'win' a perceived 'culture war'.

Secret Alias wrote:So your point is that "guardian" shouldn't be considered to be a possibility for Nazarene because the Mandaeans are too late but your theory invented only yesterday is the right understanding for Philo? You are a joke. The Mandaean hymns were used by Mani or the Manichaean Church. Your interpretation first appeared on this board in November 2015. None of your ideas are witnessed in any ancient writer

no. My point is that Nazarene means SHOOT and when referred to Jesus has a messianic meaning (via Zech6:12).
When "Nazarenes" is at plural means yet "SHOOT" but assumes a negative meaning (via the example of the bad inhabitants of Nazaret): the SHOOT are revolting against their same messianic tree. They are not more good watchers, but evil guardians: Judaizers.

My point is that Nazarene means SHOOT and when referred to Jesus has a messianic meaning (via Zech6:12)

So your point is that there never was a community who identified themselves as 'guardians' of a certain tradition related to Christianity - i.e. Nazarenes?

Why do you assume that Nazarenes came after Nazareth?