stephan huller

I am a hopeful kind of guy - just like Obama. Doesn't mean that I think it is likely that Philo's Zechariah's text went back to that unaltered text. But by the same token, I suspect that Daniel as we have it now was likely edited close to 70 CE. I think that the 'Daniel Apocryphon' found at Qumran may well be an older, more original version of Daniel. I don't know that for sure of course. But I have to leave the possibility open as it is difficult for me to believe that Theodotion's Daniel could be so different from our own.

OMG, but the subject of the discussion - I thought - was Carrier's bald exclamation that Philo DID identify Jesus the high priest of Zechariah AS the firstborn Logos. If it's 'hopeful' to assume the survival of an ur-text what do you call concluding that Philo did something which he shouldn't have.

If the statement is 'maybe' someone read Zechariah badly. Sure, ancient witnesses often read texts badly. But I don't think we can argue that Philo read THIS TEXT badly IN THIS WAY.

Andrew's argument against Jesus the high priest being identified as the anatole was so much better than my own - undoubtedly because he has a better mind. But the point here is that arguing for BAD interpretations of scripture is a slippery slope. I don't think we can conclude that Philo was guilty of making this error. It's a big stretch and certainly not worthy of the bumper sticker or internet banner that Carrier has made - and its idiotic to engage in the rah-rah-rah behavior of the ever enthusiastic Steve Carr.

Jesus the high priest can't be the anatole. I don't think anyone in antiquity ever suggested that idea. And remember we aren't simply arguing for Philo reading the text badly and saying that the anatole is a reference to Jesus the high priest but that because Zechariah believed this, the firstborn Logos was called Jesus and Christianity developed from that erroneous belief. Only stupid people would think that. To accuse someone as smart as Philo of being stupid in this one instance is - well - stupid and needs more behind it than wishful thinking.

spin

Hey, I kept out of the discussion until there I couldn't cope with the nonsense being said about Zechariah and I attempted to clarify the state of play on the passage. I don't really care why the thread got to that point.

This aa5874 moment aside, you gotta be kidding me. Some knucklehead put Zechariah into the state that it is in. Why should Philo need to have read it badly? It's already in a bad state. It doesn't make too much sense to put presumably two crowns, one of gold and one of silver, on Jeshua... with the priest alongside him.

Andrew seems to ignore the fact that it is Jeshua who is crowned, who has become the shoot/the rising. The Zechariah text is at fault, but Andrew seems to me not to have grasped the text.

Cut the crap, will ya? Who's blaming Philo of a bad interpretation? This is just creating problems to waste your time over.

Are you suffering from dyspepsia or something? I understand that you disagree, but what's this "idiotic ... rah-rah-rah" stuff all about?

Do you think you can say this yet again? I didn't catch it before. Yet, reading from LXX Zech 6, the only person available to be the rising is in fact he who received the crowns, Jeshua.

This is just one baseless imputation after another. Don't expect to communicate that way. Is it too close to xmas to get sense out of you? Too much xmas booze? Bad interpretation-bla-blah. Only stupid people-bla-blah. And why are you talking about what Zechariah believed, when all you are doing is analyzing text, not psychoanalyzing the author?

I wouldn't mind if the thread cooled down and people stuffed those balloons back in their trousers and let them deflate. This thread is not a conversation, it's a fight in which people lob things over a over barricade.

stephan huller

I just can't believe that you are supporting Richard Carrier's crystal ball/time machine knowledge about Philo calling the firstborn Logos Jesus when that's not found anywhere in the writings of Philo (but then ... well, I won't get into it). I don't know how to attack an idea that has no basis in fact or logic. Carrier basically says 'Philo called the firstborn Logos Jesus.' How am I supposed to respond to this when Philo doesn't say that anywhere. Also Andrew is correct. The high priest is beside the king who is the anatole.

I 'get' the idea that someone could have read the LXX and associated an astrological deity with the figure of anatole. But how do we make the next leap of logic that Jesus the son of Josedec is the astrological deity or that Philo's firstborn Logos is named Jesus. I am quite 'cooled down' and am no stranger to making wild claims about Zechariah 6:12. I've done it myself. I've argued that the iconography of the throne of St. Mark in Venice is developed from an interpretation of this passage. But I just don't see how we get to Carrier's claims about Philo's mindset when Philo doesn't say any of this. And I don't understand how you go along with Carrier and say 'that's the only interpretation Philo could have had.' It's silly to say that especially when you acknowledge that the text is flawed. How do you get to the idea that there is only a single possibility for how Philo could have interpreted this passage when the traditional interpretation of the passage is - the anatole is the king (future or otherwise).

The texts aren't that different from one another that we should believe that Philo would arrive at a wildly different conclusion.

Clivedurdle

But it does make sense! This is normal diplomatic practice, and I see no reason why it should not be a very ancient practice. No one made any mistakes.

It is one of several possible interpretations.

spin

It's as though you just don't want to read the text as it is. Once again, I kept out of the Carrier discussion and only came in over Zechariah. Jeshua was crowned. You can't get around that fact. The text is pretty clear over the fact.

How does Philo not make a connection of some sort between Jeshua the one who is crowned and the fact that his name is the rising?

All I've claimed is that it would be difficult for Philo to miss that the only person who could have been the rising in the context is Jeshua. So far I've only talked about Zechariah and Philo's Confusion of Tongues. Philo may have turned a blind eye to the context, as those who use Isa 7:14 have done.

Philo cites a Greek version of the text, which is in close relation to the LXX.

Philo: ιδου ανθρωπος ω ονομα ανατολη
LXX: ιδου ανερ ανατολη ονομα αυτω

Just before this Jeshua is crowned. The textual connection makes obvious that Jeshua is the one named ανατολη. I don't see where your discussion is with me. My position is simple and limited to Zechariah and Philo.

You're relying on an LXX translation of Zech 6:13 which talks of the priest standing on the right (of the throne) cf. Hebr "there be a priest on his throne", when it would seem that Philo didn't actually use the LXX here, as the differences above show. But that is beside the point anyway because the connection between Jeshua and the one named ανατολη has already been made.

aa5874

The case is closed.

Based on Hebrew Scripture and the writings of Josephus, Joshua the son of Josedec, the high Priest was NOT regarded as a Celestial high Priest.

Joshua the son of Josedek was claimed to be involved in the building of the Jewish Temple around the time of Darius the King.

Bingo the Clown-O

You might want to consider the possibility that Philo was deliberately repurposing him (Jesus ben Josedec).

Aka "making shit up".

Or perhaps he was recording/ memorializing/ or otherwise reflecting the views of other repurposers who did the actual repurposing.

Bingo the Clown-O

Right.

Word for the day: Repurpose.

stephan huller

spin

I don't know what to say. I don't mean to be offensive but I don't even see an argument here. In order to know what Philo was thinking we need to have Philo tell us something. Since Philo doesn't do that and the natural sense of all known texts (Hebrew or Greek) is that the high priest stands beside the anatole we can only assume that this is what Philo had before him and - given that Philo was a rational person, he would, like everyone else who has ever commented on this section, preclude the possibility of Jesus the high priest being the anatole. I don't know where you are getting inspiration from 'information that the connection between Jesus and the anatole has already been made' which contradicts the plain meaning of what you now acknowledge is in the LXX. It is odd that you should personally take it upon yourself to defend such a weak position. Richard Carrier would be very proud of you. You should thank him the next time you look in the mirror :huh:

spin

You've been doing a dandy job of knowing what is and is not in Philo's mind. All I said on the issue is that it is hard to use the ανατολη comment from Zechariah without seeing the connection between it and Jeshua.

This is just rubbish, Stephan. First, the Hebrew says nothing about the priest standing beside the shoot/rising. Second, the Greek clearly indicates that the only one who is crowned is Jeshua. There is no other figure named or available to get in the road of connecting the crowned Jeshua, who god acknowledges as named the shoot/rising.

You have shown no interest in dealing with this analysis and have simply restated a view that I think is just plain wrong. Look at the text.

6:13b
וישב ומשל על-כסאו
And he sit and rule on his throne

והיה כהן על-כסאו
and priest be on his throne

ועצת שלום תהיה בין שניהם
and counsel of peace be between them

You have to wait for this last phrase to get the fact that the passage was originally about two people, which will then link back to the crowns.

The LXX talks of the priest standing on his right, but that is after the connection has already been made between the crowned Jeshua and the recognition of his name being ανατολη.

You seem to have been seduced by the remnants of the original text surviving in the Greek that allow one to hedge a bit, but, as Jeshua is the one who is crowned, the one now given the task of building the temple--now that Zerubbabel has been removed from the text at this point--, it's hard not to make the connection between Jeshua and the צמח/ανατολη.

Argue against this analysis and stop the polemical bs. No-one else is crowned here, so who else can be derived from the text as the rising?? If no-one, as I see it, there is no-one else available to be named ανατολη, but Jeshua. No-one.

I haven't changed my views as to what is in the Greek. You've been on automatic pilot. Time to get control of your plane.

You throw your nonsense against Carrier at me yet again, when I have made my position clear. If you continue with this unanalytical crud, I'll just think you refuse to read the text for whatever reason and tell you where to go for wasting my time.