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

[Secret Alias]

Again why does any of this matter when the question is whether the Greek text allows for Jesus the high priest to be the anatole? You try and find any distraction other than the only question which matters to Carrier's thesis - I wonder why ...

[Secret Alias]

So your basic point - or should I say pretense here at the forum - is that:

a) you can't read Greek, you can't know if Carrier's theory is correct but
b) you are ever interested in talking about Carrier's thesis that Philo's belief in the Jesus angel can be discovered from the Greek text of Zechariah

so you conclude that the right course of action is to stimulate as many discussion possible about Carrier's thesis EXCEPT for whether the Greek text of Zechariah allows for Jesus the high priest to be high priest.

It is readily apparent that all your efforts at any forum you appear in is to spread 'awareness' of Carrier's enlightened understanding.

[MrMacSon]

Later -

Richard Carrier [aka MrMacson]* says
February 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Carrier: “What Philo took from the word [anatolê] is not relevant to any argument I make.”

fvpflyer: I would have to disagree with this point. Philo names this figure “rising” or “East.” He does not explicitly attribute the name Jesus to it.

Carrier: "You are confusing the question of how I translate the word anatolê with the question of whether Philo (or his source) was aware the passage he is interpreting comes from a narrative about Jesus the Son of Jehovah the Righteous–and not just the same narrative, but this figure is so named in the immediately preceding verse, in the same grammatically continuous sentence:

• 6:11 …you shall make crowns, and set them upon the head of Jesus the son of Jehovah the Righteous, the high priest,
  6:12 and say to him, “Thus says the almighty Lord, ‘Behold, the man whose name is Rising [anatolê]: and he shall rise up [anatelei] from his place below; and he shall build the house of the Lord,
  6:13 and he shall receive power and shall sit and rule upon his throne…

[Carrier continues] "Thus, the context is of rising (not being in the east) and the very same sentence identifies the man spoken of here as Jesus son of Jehovah the Righteous and as a high priest, the very thing Philo is talking about (both that this figure is God’s Son–and that he is his High Priest, as we know Philo understands the divine Son figure to be whom he refers to here, identifying in the other passages all the same theological attributes Paul connects to his Jesus). Philo even uses the same pun on the noun and verb forms of the word anatolê that we find in the Zechariah passage. Philo is thus quite aware of the context ..."

* Joke!

[Secret Alias]

More wall of text to avoid the question of whether the Greek text of Zechariah allows for Jesus the high priest to be the anatole. Maybe you can start posting photos of landscapes to distract us from that question. Recipes?

[Secret Alias]

Can you at least explain why you aren't interest in asking Andrew Criddle or Ben Smith whether the Greek text of Zechariah allows for Jesus the high priest to be the anatole?

[Secret Alias]

Maybe you can find another expert who will support the idea that the Greek text of Zechariah allows for Jesus the high priest to be the anatole.

[Secret Alias]

Maybe you can explain why Carrier's thesis does not sink or swim with whether the Greek text of Zechariah allows for Jesus the high priest to be the anatole? As you can see, I would welcome any discussion of the Greek text of Zechariah.

[MrMacSon]

7 Fpvflyer says
February 28, 2013 at 8:27 am

Hi, Dr. Carrier,
It is not merely an issue of how you translate the word anatolê. Philo names the “man” anatolê in 14.62. Philo does not call the “man” “Jesus” in 14.60-63. Philo thematizes anatolê, but he does not thematize the name “Jesus.” These points can be summarized in the following question:

Dr. Carrier, what name does Philo give the character in 14.62?

I am still not convinced Philo was concerned with the context of Zechariah 6 for a number of reasons. First, recall that Philo attributes this quotation to “one of the companions of Moses,” (14.62) not Zechariah. Second, Zechariah 6 does not identify Jesus as being a divine son. “Jehozadak” is a theophoric proper name in Hebrew. It does not mean “YHWH the righteous,” because theophoric names do not function in that way. Theophoric names are sentences, not titles, which is what your suggestion would amount to. “YHWH is just/righteous” would be the expected translation, according to standard properties of theophoric names. The Anchor Bible commentary on Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 renders the name as “Yahweh is just.” 1. Consult Dana M. Pike’s entry titled “Names, Theophoric” on pages 1018-1019 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 4 (Doubleday, 1992) and Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, (Sheffield Academic Press, 1988) by Jeaneane D. Fowler, for more details. Therefore, more accurate translations of the phrase including the name “Jesus” with the term “ben” from the Hebrew version would be “Jesus son of ‘YHWH is righteous’ ” or “Jesus son of ‘YHWH is just.’ ”

Moreover, the Greek version of Zechariah 6:11 reads, “Jesus of Josedek” (iesou tou Iwsedek). The Greek text does not use the Greek word for “son” in reference to Jesus in Zechariah 6:11. Remember that Philo seems to be working with the Septuagint here, not the Hebrew.

Third, observe that Philo does not call the entity named anatolê a “high priest” within the context of “On the Confusion of Tongues” 14.60-63. Philo also does not say anatolê will rebuild the house of YHWH in 14.60-63. Yet, as we both agree, “rising” does play a thematic role.

Fourth, the term “anatolê” means “rise,” so it really is not surprising that Philo would make a pun related to the concept of rising. Furthermore, Philo and Zechariah use different forms of the verb. Philo adopts the third singular aorist active indicative form of anatellw (aneteile) in “On the Confusion of Tongues” 14.63. The translation of this verb form indicates a completed action. The Greek version of Zechariah 6:12, however, utilizes the third singular future active indicative of anatellw (anatelei). This verbal form means: “he will rise.” Philo envisions the “rising” as a completed action, but the author of Zechariah 6 envisages the “rising” happening in the future. At most, one could argue that Philo was aware of the contents immediately following the material he quotes. One could alternatively argue, though, that the source that led Philo to believe this saying originated from “one of the companions of Moses” included the second half of the sentence (“Here is a man whose name is rise for he shall rise in his place”). Of course, neither scenario would demonstrate that the name “Jesus” was relevant to Philo’s exegesis of Zechariah 6.

I hope this information clears up the confusion.

Kind regards,
Fpvflyer

Endnotes:
1. The Anchor Bible Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Ed. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers. New York, London: Doubleday, 1987. 16.

Richard Carrier says [in reply]
February 28, 2013 at 10:41 am

You have failed to respond to my “arguments from incredibly amazing coincidence.” And you are ignoring the fact that Philo well knew the firstborn son figure he connects to the Zechariah figure was God’s high priest (it’s not as if he suddenly forgot this, simply because he didn’t go out of his way to re-mention it), and the fact that Philo certainly knew Hebrew and thus what the untranslated word meant. You are acting like a Christian apologist here: desperately scrambling to rationalize some way to deny the obvious. You need an incredibly improbable series of coincidences to be true to maintain your position. I do not. That’s the sum of it.

8 Fpvflyer says
February 28, 2013 at 1:17 pm

Hi, Dr. Carrier,
Your “arguments from incredibly amazing coincidence” rest on the assumption that the “Jesus” in Zechariah 6 possesses all of the attributes Paul connects to the Jesus mentioned in Paul’s epistles. However, this would only be the case if one assumes Philo deemed the figure to be named “Jesus.” I doubt that Philo called this celestial personage “Jesus.” In short, you are confusing Philo’s interpretation of content found in Zechariah with the actual content within Zechariah. You are also reading the high priest element into “On the Confusion of Tongues.” Philo identifies the firstborn son as being a high priest in another one of Philo’s writings titled “On Dreams” (1.215), but he does not make this connection in “On the Confusion of Tongues.” Philo also does not assign the firstborn son the name “Jesus” in that text either. At best, one might be able to argue that Philo interpreted the human man named “Jesus” in a quotation by “one of the companions of Moses,” (14.62) as a “type” of the non-human firstborn son. However, one cannot legitimately move from this point to concluding Philo named the celestial figure “Jesus” in “On the Confusion of Tongues.” I never denied that Philo knew Hebrew, and I don’t recall mentioning an untranslated word.

My position is that Philo names the personage anatolê, not “Jesus.” Fortunately, I do not need an incredibly improbable series of coincidences to be true to maintain that position. I only need to read what Philo writes in “On the Confusion of Tongues” 14.62. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this topic, but it appears that our discussion is not heading in a productive direction. I wish you the best in your future projects.
Kind regards,
Fpvflyer


Richard Carrier says [in reply]
March 1, 2013 at 10:19 am -

Your “arguments from incredibly amazing coincidence” rest on the assumption that the “Jesus” in Zechariah 6 possesses all of the attributes Paul connects to the Jesus mentioned in Paul’s epistles.

Yes, that Philo attributes them same as Paul, both to a man in heaven named Jesus.

In simple terms: Philo says the man spoken of in that sentence in Zech. 6 has remarkable attributes w, x, y and z; Paul independently says his Jesus has the same remarkable attributes w, x, y and z. That the man Philo is talking about also has the name Jesus in the same sentence Philo quotes is therefore an incredible coincidence. Which by definition is very improbable. Unless it’s not a coincidence.

Philo speaks frequently of the same figure in many places, so we know all the things Philo believed of that figure. You cannot pretend that he suddenly stopped believing those things wherever he just happens not to mention them all. Thus, your position is desperate and illogical even on that ground alone, much less in requiring an extraordinarily improbable coincidence. As well as the assumption that Philo had no idea what the rest of the sentence said…as if he never read the book of Zechariah. Philo. One of the most erudite biblical scholars of his day. Had never read Zechariah. Really.

I never denied that Philo knew Hebrew, and I don’t recall mentioning an untranslated word.

You attempted to argue that Philo didn’t know what Jôsedek meant. I guess you want to drop that argument now.

Philo names the personage anatolê, not “Jesus.”

Philo believed God, not Philo himself, had named the personage anatolê, which Philo learned from reading a sentence in Zechariah (the passage he quotes), a sentence in which the personage whom God names anatolê is named Jesus …and not just Jesus but, for someone like Philo, deeming that figure a celestial being and not a human, that sentence even specifically calls this Jesus the son of God. As well as high priest, and placing him in heaven (where the scene in Zech. 6 occurs), two things we know Philo also did with the same figure he connects with this one.

Hence your position requires improbability upon improbability. Mine does not. Mine explains all the evidence without requiring a single coincidence.

.

[Secret Alias]

This is just getting silly. You started by posting whole chapters from Zechariah. Now there is this distraction. Why not post chapters from War and Peace next? You can keep trying this all night, I won't let you get away from the question. Does the Greek text of Zechariah allow for Jesus the high priest to be the anatole? You can ask Andrew, Ben or anyone you want for support. I am not going anywhere.

[iskander]

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
.

His answer has taken us to Zacharias, but it is the thinking of Philo that is of interest. The question is :
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?




Later he says , "What Philo took from the word is not relevant to any argument I make. What Christians took from the word is.". Why then read Philo? and why read Zacharias?

How do we know what the first Pope may have said?