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

[MrMacSon]

Richard Carrier says
March 4, 2013 at 3:22 pm

... in my talk I addressed the difference between what the author of Zechariah meant and what Philo is taking him to mean (Philo is clearly, and explicitly, saying the author he quotes wasn’t talking about the first priest of the second temple, but the eternal celestial high priest).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32287

Zechariah does not place the man called “Jesus son of Jehozadak” in heaven in the scene in Zechariah 6.

You’re right, that happens in Zechariah 3, where the same figure is shown being crowned, and again named (by God) anatolê. Thus confirming that this event (the same one described in Zech. 6) occurred in heaven, before the throne of God.

The Anchor Bible commentary on Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 renders the name as “Yahweh is just.”

The verb “is” is not present. It’s just Jehovah Righteous [jehow = “Yahwheh” + tsadaq = “righteous”]. As a sentence, the verb “to be” would often be implied, but as a name, it would not be, but rather a connecting article, in this case “the.” It has the same exact meaning as if read “Jesus the son of Righteous Jehovah.”

.

[Secret Alias]

I am not asking to you cite from a book and distract the discussion with other tangents. Does the Greek text of Zechariah allow for the idea that Jesus the high priest was the anatole?

[Secret Alias]

All you are doing is hoping that someone else picks up on these other side issues that you've brought up in order to avoid the most fundamental question which sinks Carrier's entire thesis - does the Greek text of Zechariah allow for the idea that Jesus the high priest was the anatole?

[Secret Alias]

How can someone who is interested in Carrier's thesis about Philo of Alexandria NOT be interested in whether the Greek text of Zechariah supports the idea of Jesus the high priest as the anatole? This is difficult for me to believe. No one except Richard Carrier can possibly be so sure that Richard Carrier is right about matters here. You have yet to produce a single witness to support Carrier's reading. Why does the truth matter so little to you but Richard Carrier's vindication is an all consuming passion of yours?

[MrMacSon]

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?

This -

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 [would] therefore [be] 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 ...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32260

[iskander]

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?

This -

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 [would] therefore [be] 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 ...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32260

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 to read Philo? and why to read Zacharias?.

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

[MrMacSon]

Richard Carrier says
March 12, 2013 at 10:37 am

... Philo himself says that he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation (that a mere ordinary historical man is being described) and adopting an esoteric explanation of the scene instead (that this figure is not a man but a celestial being, in fact a particular celestial being Philo repeatedly talks about as fundamental to Jewish theology). That does not mean Philo “does not care about the context” in which this figure is mentioned; to the contrary, Philo attends to that context everywhere he believes he is mentioned. Philo is simply reinterpreting what that context means. Thus, when Zechariah says the Son of the Righteous God, the high priest, is hailed the Rising, Philo interprets that to mean the actual firstborn son of the righteous god, the celestial high priest (and says calling him Rising therefore “makes sense”) ...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32703

... 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...

[iskander]

Richard Carrier says
March 12, 2013 at 10:37 am

... Philo himself says that he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation (that a mere ordinary historical man is being described) and adopting an esoteric explanation of the scene instead (that this figure is not a man but a celestial being, in fact a particular celestial being Philo repeatedly talks about as fundamental to Jewish theology). That does not mean Philo “does not care about the context” in which this figure is mentioned; to the contrary, Philo attends to that context everywhere he believes he is mentioned. Philo is simply reinterpreting what that context means. Thus, when Zechariah says the Son of the Righteous God, the high priest, is hailed the Rising, Philo interprets that to mean the actual firstborn son of the righteous god, the celestial high priest (and says calling him Rising therefore “makes sense”).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ment-32703

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 to read Philo? and why to read Zacharias?.

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

[MrMacSon]

.

Fpvflyer says
March 13, 2013 at 8:59 am

Hi, Dr. Carrier,

Philo himself says that he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation (that a mere ordinary historical man is being described) and adopting an esoteric explanation of the scene instead (that this figure is not a man but a celestial being, in fact a particular celestial being Philo repeatedly talks about as fundamental to Jewish theology).

Philo does not say he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation. In fact, he does not attribute the quotation to Zechariah. Instead, Philo attributes the quotation to one of Moses’s companions (14.62). My argument is that Philo relays that one of Moses’s companions declared, “Behold, a man whose name is Rise.” Philo writes, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: ‘Behold, a man whose name is Rise.’” When I write that Philo names the personage anatolê, I mean that this is the name Philo records one of Moses’s companions assigning to the personage and that Philo deems the name appropriate to apply to that figure.

Carrier reply: (1) Philo indicates he is aware the phrase refers to a man, and then says he rejects that interpretation because it would be an odd thing to say of a man; then he concludes it refers to the same Logos superbeing that he talks about here and several other places.

That does not mean Philo “does not care about the context” in which this figure is mentioned; to the contrary, Philo attends to that context everywhere he believes he is mentioned. Philo is simply reinterpreting what that context means.

The key point here is that you maintain Philo is reinterpreting Zechariah’s context.

Carrier reply: (2) My argument does not require Philo to reject the context of either Zech. 3 or 6. It only requires that he is reinterpreting it. And since that is what he himself indicates he is doing, my theory requires no ad hoc assumptions. It is plainly what he is doing.
.

[iskander]

.

Fpvflyer says
March 13, 2013 at 8:59 am

Hi, Dr. Carrier,

Philo himself says that he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation (that a mere ordinary historical man is being described) and adopting an esoteric explanation of the scene instead (that this figure is not a man but a celestial being, in fact a particular celestial being Philo repeatedly talks about as fundamental to Jewish theology).

Philo does not say he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation. In fact, he does not attribute the quotation to Zechariah. Instead, Philo attributes the quotation to one of Moses’s companions (14.62). My argument is that Philo relays that one of Moses’s companions declared, “Behold, a man whose name is Rise.” Philo writes, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: ‘Behold, a man whose name is Rise.’” When I write that Philo names the personage anatolê, I mean that this is the name Philo records one of Moses’s companions assigning to the personage and that Philo deems the name appropriate to apply to that figure.

Carrier reply: (1) Philo indicates he is aware the phrase refers to a man, and then says he rejects that interpretation because it would be an odd thing to say of a man; then he concludes it refers to the same Logos superbeing that he talks about here and several other places.

That does not mean Philo “does not care about the context” in which this figure is mentioned; to the contrary, Philo attends to that context everywhere he believes he is mentioned. Philo is simply reinterpreting what that context means.

The key point here is that you maintain Philo is reinterpreting Zechariah’s context.

Carrier reply: (2) My argument does not require Philo to reject the context of either Zech. 3 or 6. It only requires that he is reinterpreting it. And since that is what he himself indicates he is doing, my theory requires no ad hoc assumptions. It is plainly what he is doing.
.

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