aa5874

The book of HAGGAI which comes before Zechariah tell us about Joshua the son Josedec, the high Priest . There is no need to invent a Celestial Joshua since no such character is in Hebrew Scripture.

It makes no sense whatsoever to use an ambiguous passage about "crowns" in Zechariah 6.12 when we have clear statements about Joshua, the son of Josedech, the high priest in Haggai.

stephan huller

I don't know where to go from here. If you are talking about WHAT IS POSSIBLE in the text, we can have a more constructive conversation as I have actually spent some time studying and even writing about this. What drove me to distraction was Carrier's (and Carr's) claim that Philo believed X and your support for this position saying in effect 'it is the only position.'

If we are to have a constructive conversation let me cite the Alexandrian tradition as I have spent some time on this (and you can ridicule me for the weaknesses in my arguments). I found this throne in Alexandria which I argued in my silly book has all this symbolism attached to it associated with Zechariah 6:12. As I said you can ridicule it. I am a charitable person by nature and never like to attack people. I only mean to attack certainty (mostly because I am so wishy washy that if someone presses hard enough I will probably go along with anything).

In any event, as I was saying there is this throne that is now in Venice which was originally from Alexandria. The consensus is that it is ancient. I've shown pictures to a number of people. You can look it up on Google.

The point is that there is this strong Alexandrian tradition in the Acts of Peter the Patriarch (I forget the technical names for all the various versions of the same story) where the circumstances of the death of Peter are intimated to have something to do with the Alexandrian Patriarchal throne. He refused to sit on the throne itself arguing that he saw Jesus sitting on the throne. He chose instead to sit on the footstool. This pissed off the faithful because as they noted, all the other Popes before him sat on the throne.

Secchi identified the throne in Venice as the one which is mentioned in the Acts of Peter I. The same idea of Jesus being present on the chair is related in many other later texts related to episcopal thrones in Egypt - i.e. Jesus sitting on the throne and the bishop can't sit on the chair. But the point is of course that originally they did sit on the throne.

In any event - I've got to put kids to bed - the point is that the symbolism on the throne all points to Zechariah 6:12 on this Alexandrian throne. On the backrest there is a specific asymmetrical design of fruit which I believe (I didn't put this in my article for the Journal of Coptic Studies because it is too 'out there') was deliberately set to spell out a specific phrase. Jews do this all the time with knots in their prayer shawls (i.e. the number of knots on each strand = letter). The fruits are arranged 8, 7, 6, 5, 9 on the five branches



The fruits on the tree (that stands in Paradise on a mountain with four rivers flowing from it) spell 'the ninth vision' in Aramaic. It has been argued by at least a few scholars that Zechariah 6:12 is the ninth in a series of nine visions in the Book of Zechariah (I forget who right now). Here is the account of me putting this together at my blog:


There is also an image of a tsemach growing and rising up from the mud in the corners of a series of panels on the back of the chair.

In any event, the point is that if you put the idea of the high priest and king sitting on the same throne with the idea of Peter the Patriarch seeing Jesus sitting on this throne and previous Patriarchs sitting on the throne with Jesus (but Peter refusing) you arrive at a very similar understanding. Jesus would then be the heavenly angel, the firstborn Logos (called Sariel in the Targums whose job it was to lead the heavenly choir in praising God = the heavenly high priest sometimes identified as Melchizedek).

The idea then - in at least some circles - might have been that Jesus = Melchizedek = the heavenly high priest who was one with the bishop/Pope figure who sat on the throne where Jesus was already present. This is a 'way out' idea to be sure. But I think there is enough evidence to at least suggest this might have been part of the fabric of the Alexandrian Church. I am only doing this because I don't want to make it seem I am ridiculing anyone for having imaginative ideas. I just don't know how we can ascribe these ideas to Philo.

spin

I can see that.



Not even an attempt to deal with Zech 6:11-13 or what I've said about it.

Just ruminations on a throne found in Venice that might have come from Alexandria according to a 19th c. Italian.

Shakes head....

stephan huller

The first principle of magnanimity is to spare your brother shame by demonstrating yourself equally capable of folly.

tanya

Thank you, spin, for your contribution. I agree, in general, with you, and gurugeorge, and Richard Carrier, but, I am nitpicking here, about your idea that these passages from Zechariah were "originally about two people". I do not dispute your contention that the text is muddled, reflecting possible editorial interpolation.

As I noted back in post 38, verse 14 clarifies the names of the additional recipients of the crowns. There were more than two people, who were designated to get jewelry, I count five, total. You have rightly chastised Stephan for failing to address the text, yet, I must apply the same criticism to you, for ignoring the text of verse 14.

As you have been involved in some fashion with DSS, I am obliged to repeat my question: Is there a different version of Zechariah 6 found in DSS?

aa5874

You cannot analyse Zechariah 6.12 in isolation when there are more DETAILS about Joshua the son of Josedek in other books of the very same Hebrew Bible.

Joshua, the son of Josedek is ONE person in the Hebrew Bible. An ambiguous statement about "crowns" cannot suddenly make Zechariah 6.12 refer to two persons.

In Revelation, we have reference to a SINGLE character who had Many Crowns on HIS head.

Revelation 19:12 KJV It is a most disturbing trend here to discard and ignore evidence solely to promote propaganda.

It is clear that ONE person could have many crowns on his head and that Joshua the Son of Josedec was NOT considered a Celestial High Priest but that he was involved in building the Jewish Temple ON EARTH.

Joshua, the son of Josedec participated in the BUILDING of the Jewish Temple ON PLANET EARTH in the Hebrew Bible.

Joshua, the son of Josedec was EARTHLY in Hebrew Scripture.

spin

One reason why the catholic hierarchy in the past discouraged ordinary people from reading the bible is because they were prone to making mistakes in doing so. There is a modicum of truth in this. No, v.14 doesn't talk about recipients at all. The verse must be read in conjunction with v.10 which talks about taking from those "that are come from Babylon", taking what is explained in the next verse. They are the suppliers of the gold and silver used for the crowns. The crowns v.14 explains are placed in the temple--so that the donors can see their contribution as a "memorial" of their gift. They receive nothing. No crown is placed on anyone else's head than Jeshua's.

Do try to prove that catholic hierarchy wrong.

Why not get off your finest feature and find out for yourself?

gurugeorge

Yeah, and it's precisely the earthly character of him that Philo implicitly denies by saying the name "Anatole" is wrongly applied to a mere man.

So Philo is giving a sort of esoteric interpretation of the text. He's implicitly affirming that in his view the earthly character of the text is only superficial, and that the named character (the character called Jesus and Anatole in Zechariah) is a really spiritual being (insofar as his second name, Anatole, could only pertain to a spiritual being, not a human one).

This means that Philo is implicitly attesting to the existence of a pre-Christian belief in a spiritual being called Jesus. (Philo is pre-Christian-ish and he's obviously talking about an entity whom he expects his readers to know about).

stephan huller

Yes he anticipates the existence of a pre-Christian Jesus without ever mentioning the name Jesus. But we can be sure its true because it is the only possible interpretation of the text. That's why no one has ever interpreted the text that way or supposed this about Philo's interpretation before Carrier. Without ever having formally studied Philo, he received a revelation knowing Philo's mind. All the more miraculous that God would perform a miracle through an atheist.

Or it could just be that many athiests are willing to accept anything which discredits Christian belief no matter how much of a logical stretch. Hmmm hard to tell what's at work here. I'm leaning toward Carrier supernaturally knowing Philo's interpretation of the passage ...

mountainman

There have been a number of articles authored that demonstrate that Philo has been "Christianized". Carrier does not appear to have mentioned these and many here act as if these arguments don't exist. Although Philo does not mention Jesus his works have most likely been "Christianized".