Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:

I'm not so much interested in what Zechariah is talking about

Ah, finally at last.

I'm interested in what Philo might have been talking about,

And please explain why these are independent of one another. How do we determine that?

Of course they're not independent of one another.

I've always had an interest in Zechariah, Isaiah, and Daniel, and their relationships in relation to Christianity, before I read anything of Carrier's.

But there is no reason to think that Philo would have lost his ability to read and interpret texts.

I don't understand the relevance of that statement.

Secret Alias wrote:

I'm interested in phases of evolution of the theologies

No you're interested in bolstering and making stronger unworkable theories that have no support in antiquity. If you cared about being fair to the evidence you'd find some example where Philo speaks of 'Jesus' as an angel.

See my posts on page 1 of this thread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1944

I think that Philo conflates Logos with angelic prophecies

eg.

• "Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system ..."
  
  "Philo uses an allegorical technique for interpretation of the Hebrew myth and in this he follows the Greek tradition of Theagenes of Rhegium (second half of the sixth century B.C.E.) ... Philo seeks out the hidden message beneath the surface of any particular text and tries to read back a new doctrine into the work of the past ..."
  
  "Philo bases his doctrines on the Old Testament, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious truth but in general of all truth. Its pronouncements are for him divine pronouncements. They are the words of the ἱερὸς λόγος, θεῖος λόγος, ὀρθὸς λόγος [holy word, godly word, righteous word] uttered sometimes directly and sometimes through the mouth of a prophet, especially through Moses, whom Philo considers the real medium of revelation ..."
  
  "Philo evolved an original teaching of Logos. The polysemic profusion of this word provided for its use in different connotation. Complying with the anthropomorphic description of God in Tanakh, Philo used logos in the meaning of an utterance. In Philo’s philosophy, God is absolutely transcendent: his notion is even more abstract than that of the Monad of Pythagoras or the Good of Plato .."
  
  "Philo thought that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son."

Mediators = angels, including Logos.

But none of this leads to the critical discovery that Philo knew about an angel named 'Jesus.' You are asking for Philo to have lost his abilities to read texts to assume that that Jesus could have been the anatole. I will even go one step further. One can allow for the possibility that the angel could have been called by any name but Jesus. For Zechariah envisions two thrones, one for the anatole and another for a Jesus the high priest. The idea of having a heavenly Jesus sit beside an earthly Jesus who was high priest is just outlandishly ridiculous. Zerubbabel is obviously Zechariah's intended answer.

And why doesn't Carrier have to provide evidence for the existence of a 'Jesus angel' before Christianity? Why isn't it necessary for him to provide evidence that Philo thought such a being existed?

Again it all comes down to asserting - Philo liked to eat pizza. What is the difference from asserting that Philo knew of an angel called 'Jesus'?

Secret Alias wrote:And why doesn't Carrier have to provide evidence for the existence of a 'Jesus angel' before Christianity? Why isn't it necessary for him to provide evidence that Philo thought such a being existed?

Secret Alias wrote:Again it all comes down to asserting - ... asserting that Philo knew of an angel called 'Jesus'?

or extrapolating.

You raise good points: I posted Carrier's assertions as a new thread to get feedback (negative or affirmative) -

• "Carrier refers to Philo's description of an angel named Jesus based on an Old Testament passage in Zachariah. Carrier doesn't appear to state the exact passages, but does briefly show "Confusion of Tongues 62-63, 146-7", and "On Dreams 1.215; etc" ...
  
  "Philo [allegedly] describes this angel named Jesus as having the following attributes -
  
  • the first-born son of God
    the celestial image of God
    God's agent of creation
    God's celestial High Priest"

Secret Alias wrote:But none of this leads to the critical discovery that Philo knew about an angel named 'Jesus.' You are asking for Philo to have lost his abilities to read texts to assume that that Jesus could have been the anatole. I will even go one step further. One can allow for the possibility that the angel could have been called by any name but Jesus. For Zechariah envisions two thrones, one for the anatole and another for a Jesus the high priest. The idea of having a heavenly Jesus sit beside an earthly Jesus who was high priest is just outlandishly ridiculous. Zerubbabel is obviously Zechariah's intended answer.

Yes, why Jesus?

First, it is reasonable to assume that the desire of some to find their Messiah in OT scriptures would have also led to a quest to find the NAME of that Messiah. I mean if you are going to start thinking he had already come, then it would be nice to give him a name too, no? Surely 'Jesus' would have been a possibility because it meant "God Saves". And then if they looked at THIS passage, which already was considered to be Messianic, what might some of them conclude?:

11 Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. 13 Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’

How about this?:

This Jesus, the high priest, was given a crown. The reference to the Branch appears to be referring to that same Jesus -- ie "Behold this newly crowned high priest, whose name is Branch". That Branch is going to build the temple and be a priest on his throne. Since that Jesus did help rebuild the temple and was a high priest and NOW has a crown, it is not a stretch to think that some saw the Branch as referring to Jesus. As was typical, the history was seen as a foreshadow of the Messianic events to unfold, which perhaps would imply that the Messiah's name will also be 'Jesus'.

TedM wrote: ... And then if they looked at THIS passage, which already was considered to be Messianic, what might some of them conclude?

Zechariah 6:11-13

11 Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. 13 Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices”.’

This Jesus, the high priest, was given a crown.

Yep.


And, as far as Chritianity goes,

He who will build the temple of the Lord,

• would be, so should be, a carpenter

.

Your reasoning is so awe inspiring. Two examples of two individuals with different agendas arriving at the same conclusion. Neither of you have tackled (a) the presence of hod in relation to the tsemach and (b) why Jewish people that is native Hebrew speakers never come to your conclusions. Always a bad sign when authorities don't agree with you. But you are both men on a mission ...

I quote the more important points made by Secret Alias and Bernard Muller from page 3:

Bernard Muller wrote:

Q for Bernard: You say that the Greek passage should be interpreted as: and he[the Branch] shall spring up from his[Jesus, son of Josedec's] stem,

I never thought or written the "stem" refers to Jesus, son of Josedec. Actually, I think the "stem" most likely refer to the royal Davidic lineage of "Rises", alluding to Zerubbabel (from http://historical-jesus.info/17.html):
My third argument: In Zechariah 6, God is asking "Zechariah" that Jesus the high priest (ch. 3), son of Josedec, to be the keeper of crowns (on his head) and wait for a still undeclared man ("Rises") to "spring up from his stem" and then rebuild the temple and becoming the king (the temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians and still not rebuilt yet).
Then the future (human) king (named the "Rises"), the one that Carrier thinks Philo referred to, is not Jesus (son of Josedec) but someone else. According to the context, Zechariah might have thought (or/and hoped) that Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, would be that one: "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it;" (Zec 4:9).

Cordially, Bernard

Secret Alias wrote:No it doesn't. This is where the argument starts to fall off the rails:

We know Zechariah meant this in some way to be Jesus ben Jehozadak ...

Statements like 'we know ...' are not worthy of seriously scholarship without explanation.

Secret Alias wrote:But none of this leads to the critical discovery that Philo knew about an angel named 'Jesus.' You are asking for Philo to have lost his abilities to read texts to assume that that Jesus could have been the anatole. I will even go one step further. One can allow for the possibility that the angel could have been called by any name but Jesus. For Zechariah envisions two thrones, one for the anatole and another for a Jesus the high priest. The idea of having a heavenly Jesus sit beside an earthly Jesus who was high priest is just outlandishly ridiculous. Zerubbabel is obviously Zechariah's intended answer.

It's ironic that both Secret and Bernard don't realize that they are doing exactly the Carrier's point.

I agree with both them that:
@Secret_Alias

Zerubbabel is obviously Zechariah's intended answer.

@Bernard

Then the future (human) king (named the "Rises"), the one that Carrier thinks Philo referred to, is not Jesus (son of Josedec) but someone else.

but it is exactly in this way that I get to have in my hands a coincidence too-impossible-to-be-a-coincidence:

...that the name 'Jesus' is found for pure coincidence (= the coincidence of which I speak) just near to the claim that ''someone else'' should be called ''anatolè''.

In this way I have the beauty of three coincidences:
1) That Paul talks about an angel with x, y, z features,
2) that Philo talks about an angel with x, y, z features
3) that the title ''Anatolè'' referred by Philo in Zecharia is found by pure coincidence near to a guy named 'Jesus', even if Zecharia did refer to Zerubabel (or someone other) as the 'anatolè'.

The Carrier'argument is that to have together those three coincidences is no longer a coincidence.

Against this argument, both Secret and Bernard fail to reply, or don't like enough his power.

Answer

1 The earliest Christian group identified their God as Eesu (Marcionites) according to Ephrem and not Eeshu (= Syr. 'Joshua') Why the distinction?
2 Philo identifies his angel only as an 'anthropos' which is a Greek translation of Zechariah's IS (pronounced eesh)
3 Philo's follow up explanation identifies him as the cosmic Man from Genesis chapter 1 (written in Hebrew as IS in the Pentateuch at Qumran)
4 the earliest Christian scriptures identify their God as IS (in Greek) i.e. nomen sacrum which is explained by the orthodox to be pronounced 'Eesu' which is (allegedly) 'Jesus'

Why do we have to (a) continue to follow orthodox interpretations of how to read two letters codes on a page and (b) pretend Philo say things he never said or believed and (c) develop explanations of Zechariah that no one could have held unless they were already rabid believers in a Jesus cult

The text of Zechariah only says the tsemach is an eesh. Philo could have developed a wacky interpretation of the material based on his preexistentire belief the Logos was the first created Man (THE archetypal Man created secretly before Adam the physical man). Christianity could have agreed