gurugeorge

??? I don't think Carrier has ever said that.

To remind you what Carrier's hypothesis is: "Jesus" was the name of an entity in some Jewish thought prior to the NT - this entity was a sort of archangel/intermediary Son of God. This was the cult of the "Pillars" and Paul.

This entity is what got morphed, post-Diaspora, in GMark, into the "gospel Jesus", i.e. an euhemerized version of the celestial archangel.

The resultant cult fits into the slot for a Jewish version of what was going on all over the Roman empire - the syncretistic combining of Hellenistic religious elements with local religious elements throughout the Empire.

aa5874

Please, show the SOURCE of antiquity that IDENTIFIED Jesus as a Celestial being.

Let us NOT get diverted by rhetoric.

Carrier is claiming or putting forward the notion that Jesus was a Celestial being but as usual NO source of antiquity mentioned any character called Jesus as a Celestial being in any writing DATED by Paleography or C14 before c 70 CE and the 1st century.

Again, Carrier IGNORES the actual RECOVERED Codices and New Testament manuscripts and Imagines his own Jesus stories.

Again, Carrier has NOT established the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writings

It seems people are EAGER to tell their own story of Jesus WITHOUT ever attempting to establish the veracity of the Pauline writings.

I no longer accept claims about the Pauline writings based on Presumptions.

gurugeorge

But it's just been explained to you that he does in fact do that very thing, i.e. use texts of antiquity, by linking Philo's quote with the "Jesus" in the Zechariah text. (He also uses Hebrews elsewhere, as it's obviously relevant too.)

I understand, and it's good that you fly that flag on these boards, it's a perfectly respectable position and you argue well for it; but Carrier is talking in terms that do accept priority for some of the Pauline writings.

GakuseiDon

Yes, which is "East", or "sun-rise", or something along those lines. Philo talks about a man from the East, and the Joshua of J in Zech 6 is also described as a man from the East.

Actually, from googling this, it looks like apologists also make the connection to that passge when trying to find "Jesus" in the OT, so I wonder if Carrier got this from some apologetics website.

This is like the "Osiris incarnated" issue above. It is a bad sign if we continually need to work out what Carrier really means. Didn't Carrier recently roast Ehrman for something similar?

Personally, I disagree that Philo is referring to Joshua of J here. However, I think Carrier is onto something, since he may very well have identified a belief in a pre-Christian heavenly Jesus.

On Philo: Philo sees importance in someone coming from "the East". He highlights this several times:

"And it came to pass, as they were moving from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar"

"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;"{16}{#ge 11:2.} speaking most strictly in accordance with nature."

"Now, the following is an example of the former kind: "And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,""

"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!"{18}{#zec 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."

If this is "one of the companions of Moses" supposedly said that, then the saying existed long before Joshua of J even lived. My guess is that Philo is trolling the OT looking for references to "the East" to support his allegory. To me, "the man" came from the paradise "in Eden, toward the East". The description fits Philo's Platonic Archetypal Adam, created in the image of God. I just don't see how or why Joshua gets a reference in the story of "the cusion of tongues". But a comparison between Adam (good man from the East) and Balaam (bad man from the East) makes sense.

HOWEVER, we don't need Philo here at all. The Bible itself provides a hint that Joshua of J was a pre-Christian heavenly Jesus! Zech 3 writes how Joshua of J was seen in a vision with an angel of God and Satan, suggesting he had become a heavenly being. So Carrier's Jesus is yet another example of Melchizedek, Elijah, Moses, etc, born on earth but given an exalted status in heaven.

It would be interesting to have a list of men in the OT who somehow become known as heavenly beings.

gurugeorge

Except that he wasn't roasting Ehrman for being a bit over-enthusiastic in a lecture.

What, even when he quotes the Zechariah passage that's talking about a "Jesus"?

It probably works both ways - divine beings brought down to earth in stories, earthly beings exalted to divine status in stories.

andrewcriddle

There is a real question as to whether Philo understood the subject of Zechariah 6:12 (LXX) Behold, a man whose name is the East as being Joshua/Jesus. (He doesn't say so.) There is considerable dispute among the (Jewish and Christian) ancient and modern commentators as to how the verse should be interpreted. Many Jewish commentators would not regard Joshua the high priest as the one called the branch (East/Rising in LXX). Some would interpret the branch as being Zerubbabel.

Andrew Criddle

anethema

The overarching issue TO ME is the presentation of differences in "western" and "eastern" thought into the equation. No one (including Carrier) can accurately describe the average mindset of anyone inthe first cen. He can bring modern scholarly presuppositions-no more. As to historicity TO ME, the question is always one of genre. Anyone arguing gospel historicity TO ME must show me one example of Tacitus accepting something supernatural as actually to have happened. I dont think there'sany question from anybody that he didnt "think" he was writing history. In his "Not the impossible faith" Carrier ranks "luke" an historian, albeit not a good one. Kind of near Suetonius, but I dont believe I've read any thing by Suetonius that leads me to believe that he described and/or promulgated anything supernatural. I would certainly love to see someone show me any 1st or 2ndcen Xian historical script in the same sense as Tacitus and Thucydides.

stephan huller

For those who have little sprachgefühl for Hebrew, the term here translated 'branch' is something of a misnomer. Tsemach really means 'sprout.' 'Eye of the potato' is more appropriate than 'branch.' I guess this is the fault of the KJV again.

The implication is clearly someone who is small now but will 'rise' (hence its translation as anatole in the Greek) in the future. Tsemach does not mean branch. Shoot, something rising. But not branch.

GakuseiDon

Yes, though Philo doesn't quote the Zech passage with the name "Jesus". He actually quotes Zech 6:12 ("Behold, a man whose name is the East!") and not Zech 6:11 (Joshua son of J). But Zech 6:12 is spoken by the Lord, whereas according to Philo it is spoken by "one of the companions of Moses". Was the companion of Moses referring to Joshua of J? Nope. Does Philo mention a Joshua? Nope. Neither does it make sense that Joshua of J is in view in Philo. The "man from the east" is Adam/Balaam, the good and the bad.

But it doesn't really matter. I still think Carrier has a point, only it wasn't a celestial being called "Jesus", it was a man called "Jesus" who had become exalted enough to stand before the angel of the Lord according to a vision recorded in the OT.

Like "Osiris incarnated", Carrier phrased the description to suggest something that parallels the Jesus myth. However, assuming that Carrier had Zech 6 in mind, ironically the example seems to reflect something along the lines of the historical Jesus view: a good man who lived on earth and was exalted.

GakuseiDon

Carrier writes that "Osiris descends to the sublunar air, becomes incarnate, dies, and is restored to life". Does Plutarch suggest this? Carrier and Doherty argue "yes". I argue "no".

I've already looked at the "incarnation" issue above, and Doherty's explanation. I won't go over that part again here.

I'll now look at Doherty's defence of Carrier's comment on Plutarch on the other parts of the Osiris myth playing out above the earth in a sublunar air.

Below I've repeated the central part of Doherty's argument to support Carrier. (Doherty does have more on his webpage, but I've extracted what I think is the main argument.) From here:

So that's pretty clear. Typhon operates in the area below the moon, and messes with Osiris and Isis there.

But is that what Plutarch tells us? The problem is that Doherty and Carrier have read "below the orb of the moon" as inferring "above the earth". But that is not the case. Let me give a more complete quote of that section from Plutarch (my bold throughout) from 376D:

The sistrum (rattle) also makes it clear that all things in existence need to be shaken, or rattled about, and never to cease from motion but, as it were, to be waked up and agitated when they grow drowsy and torpid. dThey say that they avert and repel Typhon by means of the sistrums, indicating thereby that when destruction constricts and checks Nature, generation releases and arouses it by means of motion.340

The upper part of the sistrum is circular and its circumference contains the four things that are shaken; for that part of the world which undergoes reproduction and destruction is contained underneath the orb of the moon, and all things in it are subjected to motion and to change through the four elements: fire, earth, water, and air.

Here "destruction" is Typhon and "Nature" is Isis. The sistrum is like a drum used by Egyptians to represent the universe. The reference to Nature, fire, earth, water and air shows that "underneath the orb of the moon" encompasses EVERYTHING under the orb of the moon, including the earth, etc. This is NOT indicating a special region above the earth. Doherty's and Carrier's use of it to that effect is incorrect.

So what about "Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas"? Doherty uses that to explain that Typhon is operating in "the area near the orbit of the moon". But is that the case? No! The myth of Isis and Osiris refers to the Nile and the land of Egypt. Isis is Nature. Osiris is the water and flood that gives life to the earth. Typhon is the drought that comes from the hot winds of Ethiopia. From 366C:

The outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys. This is why they give to Nephthys the name of "Finality," and say that she is the wife of Typhon. Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding waters spreads far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions, they call this the union of Osiris with Nephthys, which is proved by the upspringing of the plants...

The insidious scheming and usurpation of Typhon, then, is the power of drought, which gains control and dissipates the moisture which is the source of the Nile and of its rising; and his coadjutor, the Queen of the Ethiopians, signifies allegorically the south winds from Ethiopia; for whenever these gain the upper hand over the northerly or Etesian winds which drive the clouds towards Ethiopia, and when they prevent the falling of the rains which cause the rising of the Nile, then Typhon, being in possession, blazes with scorching heat; and having gained complete mastery, he forces the Nile in retreat to draw back its waters for weakness, and, flowing at the bottom of its almost empty channel, to proceed to the sea. The story told of the shutting up of Osiris in the chest seems to mean nothing else than the vanishing and disappearance of water.

Now a more complete quote from 375A to 375C, incorporating Doherty's use of "the outermost part of matter". Note the reference again to "generation", which is used of Isis to refer to her role in Nature:

Some think the seed of Woman is not a power or origin, but only material and nurture of generation. To this thought we should cling fast and conceive that this Goddess also who participates always with the first God and is associated with him in the love of the fair and lovely things about him is not opposed to him, but, just as we say that an honourable and just man is in love if his relations are just, and a good woman who has a husband and consorts with him we say yearns for him; thus we may conceive of her as always clinging close to him and being importunate over him and constantly filled with the most dominant and purest principles. But where Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas, there we may conceive of her as seeming sad, and spoken of as mourning, and that she seeks for the remains and scattered members of Osiris and arrays them, receiving and hiding away the things perishable, bfrom which she brings to light again the things that are created and sends them forth from herself.

The relations and forms and effluxes of the god abide in the heavens and in the stars; but those things that are distributed in susceptible elements, earth and sea and plants and animals, suffer dissolution and destruction and burial, and oftentimes again shine forth and appear again in their generations. For this reason the fable has it that Typhon cohabits with Nephthys and that Osiris has secret relations with her; for the destructive power exercises special dominion over the outermost part of matter which they call Nephthys or Finality. But the creating and conserving power distributes to this only a weak and feeble seed, which is destroyed by Typhon, except so much as Isis takes up and preserves and fosters and makes firm and strong.

Plutarch has given the allegorical meaning to the Isis and Osiris myth, which relates to the flooding of the Nile and the land of Egypt, and the coming hot winds from outside Egypt that dry up the Nile. Isis is Nature, the generative power that preserves and brings new life. Osiris is the Nile that floods the land. Typhon is Drought, the destructive force that dries the Nile and the land. So the allegory is the story of Nature, the Nile and of Egypt. That's all clear enough.

But if all the actions are confined to an area above the earth and under the Moon, what does the allegory mean? What is Typhon? A destructive force against... what exactly? What is Osiris? What is Isis? It makes no sense.

Guys, the kind of quote-mining being done by Carrier and Doherty here is simply why you need to investigate these types of claims for yourselves.