stephan huller

The linguistic anomalies of the passage are such that what was originally a narrative about the crowning of Zeruabbel was altered subsequent to his death to reflect the crowning of Joshua. It is generally acknowledged that v 11 was altered so that where 'Zerubbabel' originally stood, 'Joshua' was put in its place. In verse 14 the plural 'crowns' is used but the singular תִּהְיֶ֖ה. Nevertheless, as Andrew points out, it is hard to get around the high priest being beside the anatole. It is even a larger leap of logic to argue, as Carrier apparently has, that Philo thought the name of Logos was Jesus because of this passage. This is why the exegesis of scriptural passages has to be rooted in tradition associated with those passages. Often times what survives is a remnant of the older tradition which survives despite changes to the text. To this end, the anatole is consistently referenced with a royal figure (usually in the future) and never with a priestly figure (= Jesus/Joshua). The question of whether 'it is possible' that Philo 'could' have interpreted the passage in a given way is very different that what Carrier did, which is basically develop a slogan or a banner saying that 'it is a fact' that Philo did this. It is not a fact. It is an unproven assertion and one which does not further the cause of humiliating the belief that Jesus was a person.

spin

I've already said all this.

And I've already dealt with this.

And I've fucking said not to insinuate Carrier into this discourse between us. Despite the fact that it concerns the thread topic which I indicated I wasn't interested in, it has nothing to do with my comments regarding Zechariah and Philo.

Three strikes, Stephan. You point blank refuse to look at the obvious linguistic connection a reader is led to make between the one crowned in 6:11 and the one beheld in 6:12. Pretty hopeless.

Yeah sure, that's where we got the trinity ("I and the father are one") and the two natures of Jesus. Post hoc re-elaborations. The traditions you have cited have been way later than Philo, making them at best tangents.

Roll the dice. Sometimes, ok. Others, obviously not. Older tradition affects later tradition, so insinuating back, especially over long time gaps, is a form of cheiromancy.

Ever wonder why Jeshua is referred to in Dan 9:25 as the anointed prince while Onias III is only called the anointed in the next verse? He was crowned.

If you can't concentrate, is there something you can take? As I said, "I'm still not interested in you injecting Carrier into the above." I guess I didn't communicate that clearly enough. You've still not looked at the material I asked you about. You just changed the subject. Remember, you said, "I didn't know what to say to spin", so I pointed you in the direction of what to say, but did you take the hint? No.

As I see it, someone who actually reads Zech 6:9-14 is constrained to connect the one crowned with the one beheld, ie Jeshua, who is called tsemach. The Greek is similar, changing "that which sprouts" to "that which rises" (and clarifies that there is a priest beside the one enthroned). Try again, Stephan: what does the Greek ιδου ανθρωπος draw the reader's attention to in the text?? You don't need to ask "which man?" Why isn't ιδου ανθρωπος a plain anaphoric reference? :banghead:

stephan huller

But your approach is anamolous as well which is why it is impossible to separate from Carrier's which is precisely why I can't let Carrier out of the discussion (assuming at least theoretically that you are two separate people for the moment). Yes you do acknowledge that the text as we now have it is corrupt but then you - in the very manner of Carrier - proceed to speak of 'definitive' arguments which identify Jesus/Joshua as the crowned figure not only here but in other passages of the OT. I find this utterly bizarre.

The original context of the debate was Carrier. It is the subject of the thread. I see no reason to divorce my comments from his untenable position. But again, your position is anomalous because you begin by acknowledging that the text was altered away from Zerubbabel but then argue that Jesus/Joshua is the 'right interpretation' and offer up supporting arguments from Daniel.

And your 'three strikes' nonsense is similarly desperate. You and Carrier are now in league with the likes of mountainman and aa by inflexibly arguing for an untenable position. Somehow - for reasons I can't understand other than assuming you are Carrier - you have decided to go beyond arguing that 'one can make a case' for Jesus/Joshua being the crowned figure of Zechariah chapter 6 to claiming that Jesus/Joshua is the anatole. The original context of this debate (and this thread) was Carrier's mention of Philo's 'belief' that Jesus was the name of Logos on the radio program which has garnered so much attention. You of course want to distance yourself from that opinion and instead arguing for a modified position which is less silly, but that won't do you any good (especially if you are Carrier).

Is it possible that someone could have come along and identified Jesus/Joshua as the anatole? Of course it is. Justin is evidence of that. But my position (and any reasonable person's opinion) is that so many corruptions have come to the text, transforming the text away from an original identification of Zerubbabel - that it is silly to speak of Jesus/Joshua as the 'right' interpretation of the material. Can one argue that? Sure it happens all the time in contemporary scholarship especially among Christian apologists.

But why would you argue for the 'right' interpretation of a text you acknowledge was corrupted in antiquity and has clear anamolies and is basically senseless in its present state? Only you know the answer to that.

spin

I can only ask you so many times, Stephan. When you feel like apologizing for the above post and dealing with the text as I have attempted to, do let me know.

stephan huller

I am sorry for comparing you to aa and mountain man.

tanya

Stephan, I can offer three reasons why spin is not an alias of Richard Carrier:

a. text: spin's educational background is clearly British/Australian, not USA, as is Carrier's. spin's vocabulary is so distinctive, one can recognize a spin post, on other fora, from the vocabulary, even when he employs a female's name to login to the forum. The text at Carrier's blog is that of a citizen born and raised in USA, not UK or Australia.

b. CV of Carrier, shows a scholar with zero experience with Hebrew; spin is a scholar with an intimate knowledge of Hebrew. spin also knows Italian, in addition to Latin, Carrier makes no such claim.

c. spin is engaged, when not here on the forum, in actual investigations, on DSS, and this may or may not be of interest to Carrier, but, he has not published on the topic, whereas, one has the impression that spin is an actual DSS scholar, with experience on site. Perhaps I err in that assessment.

Carrier, in my opinion, has lost his footing, by invoking Bayesian analysis, to search for clues on earliest Christianity.

He is a brilliant man, a lot smarter than I will ever be, but I think his ideas will eventually be met with concern, and even, scorn, by the mathematics community.

spin doesn't seem like someone who would step in that puddle.

Back to the OP:
The more I read the text, the less confident I become, about who is, and who is not the anatole.

Here, in Zechariah 6:4, Zech is talking to an angel, and we encounter the word adonai, Lord, used in conversing with the angel:

6:4 V'a'yN V'aMUr 'aL-HML'aK HDBUr BY MH-'aLH 'aDNY.

6:4 Then I answered the angel who talked with me, What are these, my lord?

Now, the strange part, to my way of thinking, is that the angel replies, referencing not YHWH, but "the Lord of the earth", as if in a Tolkien novel:

6.5 The angel answered me, These are the four winds of the sky, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. Why not write YHWH? This suggests Christian meddling, with the extant manuscript evidence in my opinion, and therefore I inquired whether or not there may have been a fragment from the caves, clarifying this issue. If some part of the text demonstrates tampering, why not assume that all of the text has been "adjusted"?

It is rather difficult, in my opinion, to argue about the "real" meaning of this text, which is so ambiguous, and so clearly mythological. It is like arguing whether Yossarian flew 20 times, or only twice. Does it really matter who the "he" is, when discussing the anatole? What changes if "he", the anatole, is, or is not, Jeshua? Absent a text untouched by Christian manipulation, we cannot meaningfully analyze the situation.

spin

If anyone is wondering what the issue is here, consider:

A reader of this my previous post would look at the bolded "you" and understand that it refers back to "Stephan", who I was apparently in conversation with. There is a linguistic connection between the "you" and the previous mention of "Stephan", which makes clear what the pronoun refers to. There is a cohesion which links sentences together, so that one can build up complex communications. Without those links there series of sentences can seem randomly placed together. The reader constructs the sense of a collection of sentences by taking the cues in the links provided. (Just notice for example the repetition of "links" in the previous three sentences.)

Here is Jn 1:29:

The next day he (John) saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God"

The word "behold" here focuses the readers attention to the only meaningful earlier reference, ie Jesus. There is an obvious link between the "behold, the lamb of god" and Jesus and "behold" forces you to find what it focuses on.

When Mary says to the angel in Lk 1:38, "behold, the handmaiden of the lord", the angel is linguistically constrained to see this subservient person, ie Mary.

Here's Zech 6:11-12 again:

11. Take silver and gold, make crowns and place them on the head of Jeshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12. Tell him: This is what the Lord of Hosts says: Behold the man whose name is Shoot/Rising; He will shoot/rise up from his place and build the Lord's temple.

I think the link is just as strong between "behold the man" and Jeshua for anyone reading this text. The only alternative I see is if verse 12 were extracted without verse 11, so that one couldn't see the link.

(Thanks, Stephan, for the clarification.)

aa5874

The word EAST is NOT in any of the translations--NONE--ZERO.

The word ORIENT is in ONE translation but NOT the word EAST.

Toto

English - if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for aa5874.

aa5874

If you understood English you would know that 'EAST' may refer to a Cardinal Direction and not a Region.

[Matthew 2:2 KJV