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

[Secret Alias]

you know I don't read Greek, hence you know I have to take others' at their word when they cite texts originally written in Greek

It is absolutely baffling that how you - a supposed ignoramus when it comes to Greek and issues related to antiquity - stand down the authority of not only dozens of cited experts in ancient Greek but peers here at the forum such as Ben Smith and Andrew Criddle, Criddle being no less than a graduate of Cambridge who has contributed to a number of compendiums of ancient language https://books.google.com/books?id=zOATA ... IQ6AEIHDAA Utterly baffling that authorities don't make a dent in your objectivity about the centerpiece to Carrier's theory (i.e. whether the LXX allows for Jesus the high priest to the be the anatole). Jewish mother's don't exhibit this sort of blind admiration for the only born male children. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 70044.html Again, just lay the issue to rest for us. Tell us that you aren't Richard Carrier.

[MrMacSon]

Zechariah 3 -

1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.”

Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”

5 Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by.

6 The angel of the Lord gave this charge to Joshua: 7 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in obedience to me and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.

8 “‘Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. 9 See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.

10 “‘In that day each of you will invite your neighbor to sit under your vine and fig tree,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”

[Secret Alias]

It's not enough for you that a Cambridge graduate like Andrew Criddle has not only told you what the LXX allows and won't allow. He's even brought forward explanations of how this text arose in history where this interpretation is confirmed by his peers. You just run away from the question about your identity. After all, your purpose here in this thread it seems was to draw attention to a video of Richard Carrier. Your stated position throughout this forum inevitably walks in lockstep with Richard Carrier. It's all very strange.

[Secret Alias]

Isn't it about time you posted another wall of text from Zechariah?

[iskander]

I agree with Carrier here -

I found this on Dr Richard Carrier's blog, dated Feb 2013. There is a very long and detailed discussion on Philo and Zech 6 between Carrier and someone named "fpvflyer". Fpvflyer criticizes Carrier on many of the same points being brought up here. I've pasted in some exchanges pertinent to the recent discussion here.

Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3103


Fpvflyer:

... Zechariah 6:9-15 situates Joshua in an earthly setting, saying:

“The word of the LORD came to me:

10 Collect silver and gold from the exiles—from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah—who have arrived from Babylon; and go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah.

11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of “YHWH is just”

12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Rise: for he shall rise in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.

13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them.

14 And the crown shall be in the care of Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Josiah son of Zephaniah, as a memorial in the temple of the LORD.

15 Those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the LORD; and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.”

Dr Carrier:

... In Zech. 6 God has Jesus crowned and declares his name Anatolê -

• “Behold, the man whose name is the Rising: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah;…and bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne”

In Zech. 3 God has Jesus crowned and declares his name Anatolê -

• “behold, I will bring forth my servant the Rising” and “thou shalt judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts

It makes no sense to think that God would call Jesus Anatolê in one crowning event and then, at another crowning event, say that someone else would be called Anatolê.

In Zech 3 God is speaking to the entire congregation; his meaning is then explained in Zech. 6. In Zech 3 God is asking Jesus to note the prophecy of the stone (3:10), and asking the congregation to behold the role his servant (Jesus the Anatolê) will play in it (3:9, 3:11). This has to be the interpretation, otherwise Zechariah contradicts himself within the space of three chapters when speaking of the same crowning of Jesus.

And so would any later interpreter like Philo conclude, being unwilling to assume a contradiction so blatant. You require the improbability of Zechariah and Philo both assuming these passages contradict each other and thus don’t describe the same event even though they plainly do.

Link to entire discussion, with full responses: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3103

MrMacSon, Greek is not necessary to properly evaluate this exchange:

The question
However, Philo does not name this figure “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” does not appear anywhere in the text, nor does the context of Philo’s passage suggest the name would have been thematically relevant for Philo’s usage.
What led you to conclude that Philo calls this celestial being “Jesus” in the passage above?
Sincerely,
Fpvflyer

The answer
Richard Carrier says
February 26, 2013 at 7:25 pm
First:
Read Zechariah 6. Philo is talking about the man described there. The man who is there named Jesus.
(Or do you imagine Philo didn’t own a Bible and didn’t know what that man was named in that very same chapter?)
Second:
Philo wrote Greek, not English. The word he used is not literally “East” but anatolê, “rising.” That word was used to mean what we mean by East because the East is where the sun rises. The word “East” as a distinct word (a word that doesn’t mean rising) only exists in English. English translation thus disguises what actual word is being used.

Comment:
Does the answer mean anything at all?
First ,The answer says nothing about Philo, it says the explanation is to be found elsewhere. It affirms that Philo was the owner of a Bible and had read it well enough to know the name of the man mentioned there.
Second, the answer says ,"The word “East” as a distinct word (a word that doesn’t mean rising) only exists in English". This is not true.

[Secret Alias]

MrMacSon, Greek is not necessary to properly evaluate this exchange ...

which questions Carrier's claim that Philo's position follows naturally from the Greek text of Zechariah. Sure.

[Secret Alias]

MrMacSon, Greek is not necessary to properly evaluate this exchange ...

which questions Carrier's translation of a critical section of the Greek text of Zechariah as 'on the head of the high priest Joshua son of “YHWH is just." Yes Greek would be of no use whatsoever to evaluate that claim.

After this exchange I am going to away now to read my favorite writer Who is Like God Crichton. Isn't that what every English speaking person calls Michael Crichton? And then after that I am going to watch a movie with Son of Old Age Affleck followed by tuning into Late Night with Crown Colbert.

[MrMacSon]

which questions Carrier's translation of a critical section of the Greek text of Zechariah as 'on the head of the high priest Joshua son of “YHWH is just."

That translation seems to have been provided by fpvflyer - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32323

[Secret Alias]

Why are shifting this discussion to some anonymous internet poster? Do you want me to knock on my 80 year old neighbor's door and see if he can provide us with another meaningless distraction? The question as always is - can the Greek text of Zechariah be read as if Jesus the high priest is the anatole and you want to shift the discussion to anything but the answer to that question. Which is odd of course given the fact how personally involved you are with the subject matter. So your point seems only to find whatever means necessary to keep alive Richard Carrier's thesis. You have absolutely no interest in the truth or truthfulness.

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon, Greek is not necessary to properly evaluate this exchange:

The question
However, Philo does not name this figure “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” does not appear anywhere in the text, nor does the context of Philo’s passage suggest the name would have been thematically relevant for Philo’s usage.
What led you to conclude that Philo calls this celestial being “Jesus” in the passage above?
Sincerely,
Fpvflyer

The answer
Richard Carrier says
February 26, 2013 at 7:25 pm
First:
Read Zechariah 6. Philo is talking about the man described there. The man who is there named Jesus.
(Or do you imagine Philo didn’t own a Bible and didn’t know what that man was named in that very same chapter?)
Second:
Philo wrote Greek, not English. The word he used is not literally “East” but anatolê, “rising.” That word was used to mean what we mean by East because the East is where the sun rises. The word “East” as a distinct word (a word that doesn’t mean rising) only exists in English. English translation thus disguises what actual word is being used.

Comment:
Does the answer mean anything at all?
First ,The answer says nothing about Philo, it says the explanation is to be found elsewhere. It affirms that Philo was the owner of a Bible and had read it well enough to know the name of the man mentioned there.
Second, the answer says ,"The word “East” as a distinct word (a word that doesn’t mean rising) only exists in English". This is not true.

Either side of that exchange is this -

Previously, fpvflyer asked about 14.62-63 of Philo’s work “On the Confusion of Tongues” and cites 14.60-63 thus -

“(60) But those who conspired to commit injustice, he says, “having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There,” speaking most strictly in accordance with nature. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth. (61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: “And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East” not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable. (62) “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: “Behold, a man whose name is the East!”(Zech 6:12). 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. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns” http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32169

Then the passage iskander cited above

Then this passage by fvpflyer - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32201

Then Carrier posted this

The whole series of paragraphs in question has Philo giving different meanings to rising and dawning, of which this is one, Eden is another, and so on (see pars. 60-64). So there is nothing to argue from this. It’s all about different kinds of rising and dawning. What Philo took from the word is not relevant to any argument I make. What Christians took from the word is.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32204

What is being discussed is exegesis before Christian exegesis, and implications about whether this pre-Christian exegesis may have influenced Christian exegesis.

Carrier is right - "What Christians took from the word is" is most significant
.