tanya

Thank you Andrew. Yup, good thread, I appreciated your comments there, as well as those of gurugeorge, and many others.

LXX: ...He will branch out from where he is and build the Temple of the Lord.

Hebrew: ...and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Yahweh;

Perhaps owing to impoverished linguistic skills, I perceive an enormous theological gulf between YHWH, and kurios. Christians seek to identify Jesus of Nazareth with YHWH. Gospel of John explicitly says they are one and the same. According to LXX, Zechariah ALSO references Jesus of Nazareth, indirectly, by means of the code word, "kurios", Lord. I don't know whether the original LXX redacted the name of the Hebrew deity, YHWH, but in any event, why wouldn't Philo have employed rather, the Hebrew text, which reveals no confusion on this point?

The question remains about the interpretation of anatole, whether "sunrise" ("east"), or "sprout", "shoot", "germ", "embryo"? Anatole is a relatively common name, there is even a Greek/French dictionary (Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français) to which I refer from time to time, written by Anatole Bailly (no, ἀνατολὴ is not found therein--it is an abrege!!!). Question: is tsemach a name found in Jewish families?

As far as what Philo meant, it remains a mystery to me, how one can write so confidently about Philo's thoughts, given our lack of information about the text(s) he had employed?

Question: Where is Anatolia? Isn't that modern day Turkey, but, in ancient times, wasn't it inhabited by an IndoEuropean language speaking group, closely related to Greek, the Hittites? Anatolia would have certainly been East of Greece.

So, does tsemach relate to Turkey in some way? Since the Semitic groups are thought to have traveled into Palestine from Mesopotamia, several thousand years ago, could tsemach bear some relation to a geographic region near the delta of the Tigris Euphrates rivers?

Clivedurdle

Zadok anointed Solomon King. Who actually is more powerful?

gurugeorge

OK, summing up, it's pretty clear that the chap Zechariah is talking about in the LXX passage is called Ἰησοῦ.

The troubleseme central figure of the NT is also called Ἰησοῦ.

Zechariah's Ἰησοῦ also seems to be given a second name, that name is ἀνατολή. This second name seems to be a name he's given in the course of an initiation ceremony. The name means something like "rises-in-the-East", or "bud" or "shoot" ("branch" seems to be just a bad translation).

Philo doesn't explicitly mention the name Ἰησοῦ, he only explicitly mentions the second name, ἀνατολή.

But the character he's talking about does seem to be the same character Zechariah is talking about, who is named by Zechariah both Ἰησοῦ, and ἀνατολή.

But Philo seems to be only interested in the second name, or initiatory name, ἀνατολή, and discusses it, and gives an "incorporeal" interpretation of it, which implies that the character is incorporeal; one might say that the Zechariah passage is being interpreted by Philo in an esoteric sense, as really applying to an incorporeal being.

Is that a fair summary?

So the sticking point here for some folks seems to be the "High Priest" bit: in the Zechariah passage this Jesus is the son of the High Priest. Carrier seems to claim in his last point that Philo is saying that this Jesus is a "celestial High Priest" in his own right. This last point seems to be the grey area. (But isn't the son supposed to follow in his father's footsteps?)

aa5874

Philo wrote NOTHING about any character who would be crucified and be raised on the third day for the Remission of sins of Jews and all mankind.

It is completely erroneous and without any regard to context to even think that Paul's resurrected Jesus who died for our sins is found in Jewish writings.

Please, the Pauline theology is Blasphemy to the Jews.

Only God must be worshiped--Only God can forgive sins in the religion of Jews.

There is NO claim in the writings of Philo that the Jesus had ALREADY come to earth or in heaven and was already crucified or had already died for our sins.

The fact is that there is NO evidence whatsoever of Pauline influence in Jewish or Non-Jewish writings in the 1st century.

Romans 10:9 KJV Galatians 2:20 KJV There is no such Blasphemy in ALL the writings attributed to Philo. There is NO Remission of Sins by crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God in Philo---NOTHING at all--Zero.

gurugeorge

But that's not what Carrier is claiming. He's claiming merely that there's precedent evidenced in Jewish writing for the idea of a celestial being called "Jesus" (and also in this instance "Anatole").

IOW, there's pre-Christian precedent for an entity called "Jesus" that has similar celestial or divine aspects to the central figure of the NT, also called "Jesus". The point is, it's not necessarily something that suddenly appeared with no prior development.

You yourself claim the idea is a fabrication. Well and good, but there's also a question of: is it a total fabrication, or was it a development of previous ideas? For that you of course have to go outside the NT writings, to see if there are similarities, which, by the very nature of the hypothesis, are only going to be partial (Philo's Jesus obviously didn't do the death/resurrection, third day thing, but it's an intersting poin that he just has some of the other characteristics of the gospel Jesus, i.e. the divine, celestial characteristics).

stephan huller

What's the matter with people's reading skills? No Jesus is not the anatole. Not for Zechariah. Not for Philo.. Wake up. When in human history did people develop the skill of reading badly? When did "I want this to be true" overtake what is actually written on the fucking page? Don't you think

aa5874

But, the very authors of the Jesus story showed that they used Hebrew Scripture to develop their character.

For the birth of their Jesus they used Isaiah 7.14--not Philo.

For the Biography of their Jesus they used Jeremiah, the Psalms, Hezekiah, Daniel, Malachi, Zechariah and other Hebrew books--Not Philo.

Philo and all the authors of the NT, including the Pauline writers, used Hebrew Scripture

Paul claimed Jesus was the Son of God and made of a woman which is almost identical to Isaiah 7.14 in Hebrew Scripture where it is claimed a WOMAN shall conceive and bear a son.

Isaiah 7:14 RSVIn other words a Woman shall bear a son who is God with us [Immanuel].

Now, examine Galatians 4. The Pauline writer is using the very same Isaiah 7.14.

Galatians 4:4 RSV-- The Pauline revealed Gospel was derived from NT and Hebrew Scripture--Not Philo.

You keep forgetting that the Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Church of God so it must be that the theology of the Church of God Predated the Pauline revealed Gospel of the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer merely attempted to changed the Theology of the Jesus cult but was NOT the originator.

The Pauline writers are merely claiming to be Witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus and that they received revelations from him.

No author of the NT, not even the author of Acts, writing in the 2nd century or later, wrote one thing about the Pauline revealed Gospel.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the Jesus cult was ALREADY operating when the Pauline characters were Persecutors??

1. The Pauline writings do NOT represent the teachings of early Church of God.

2. The Pauline writings do NOT represent the early Persecuted Church.

3. The Pauline writings do NOT repesent the supposed teachings of Jesus BEFORE he was raised from the dead.

tanya

Zechariah 6:11-12
11:
ולקחת כסף־וזהב
ועשית עטרות ושמת
בראש יהושע
בן־יהוצדק הכהן
הגדול׃

12:
ואמרת אליו לאמר
כה אמר יהוה צבאות
לאמר הנה־איש צמח
שמו ומתחתיו יצמח
ובנה את־היכל
יהוה׃

English version of the Hebrew:
11.
yes, take of them silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;
12.
and speak to him, saying, Thus speaks Yahweh of Hosts, saying, Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Yahweh;

English version of LXX:

11.
Accept their gifts, and make a crown from the silver and gold. Then put the crown on the head of Jeshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.
12.
Tell him, ‘This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: Here is the man called the Branch. He will branch out from where he is and build the Temple of the Lord.

a. So, Stephan, who is the "him" above? Is he Joshua, son of Jehozadak?

b. Who is Anatole? Let us examine a couple of other passages, in order to clarify why, in my uneducated opinion, Anatole corresponds to Joshua:

Zechariah 6: 9-15, World English version of LXX:

9. The word of Yahweh came to me, saying,
10. "Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah; and come the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, where they have come from Babylon.
11. Yes, take [their] silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;
12. and speak to him, saying, 'Thus says Yahweh of Armies, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch [here on the forum, we call him Sunrise]: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Yahweh; 13. even he shall build the temple of Yahweh; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
14. The crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of Yahweh.
15. Those who are far off shall come and build in the temple of Yahweh; and you shall know that Yahweh of Armies has sent me to you. This will happen, if you will diligently obey the voice of Yahweh your God."'"

So, YHWH has instructed those listening, to make new crowns from the gold and silver delivered by the Babylonian captives, and then to place those five new crowns on the heads of five people:
Joshua, son of Jehozadek,
Helem, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, all of undistinguished parentage, perhaps orphans, and finally, Hen, son of Zephaniah.

Further, we know that Joshua, son of J, is supposed to become the priest of this new temple. It is unclear, in English translation, what the function should be of the other four recipients of the newly fabricated crowns.

The point is, to my way of thinking, that GuruGeorge is not in error, in claiming that J of J is the chap referred to as Anatole.

I am wondering, Stephan, if your rejoinder represents a more sophisticated understanding of the Hebrew, and we would all profit from your elaborating a proper English translation of these few verses from the ancient Hebrew text, not the LXX. I know that you believe that the two are absolutely equivalent, but I am skeptical, I doubt they are identical, and in this case, I am suspicious that your indignation at our inability to comprehend the written text, is based, at least in part, on your superior understanding of the underlying Hebrew text.......

Clivedurdle

Xians definitely conjoined a king and a priest in their Lord Jesus Christ. The name says it - Yahweh's anointing (priest) saviour - Joshua - a king, a leader.

Plus the words on the cross.

We are looking at a story of God saving humanity, drawing on existing traditions, including Philo.

And once you conjoin a priest and a king, a series of letters discussing this, a few gospels telling this priest king's life and death, and a joining work is predictable!

spin

For all you interpreters of Zech 6:12, step back to Zech 4-5, where you'll find two individuals, Jeshua, the priest, and Zerubbabel, the offspring of David, who are both messiahs (4:14). It is the writer's intention in 3:8 that the shoot is not Jeshua. When we come to 6:11, the Hebrew text is clear that he crowns are plural, presumably one silver and the other gold, but then incredibly they are put on the same head, that of Jeshua. (This is why some translations reduce the Hebrew plural to a single crown.) We know from 4:8-10 that it was Zerubbabel who laid the foundation stone for the temple and was to go on to build it, and it was the temple builder in 6:12, the shoot, who in 6:13 shall bear royal honor, sit on the throne and have the priest by his throne.

The intrusion here is that Jeshua appears in place of Zerubbabel implied on the throne and yet he is the priest beside himself. The text of Zechariah here has been altered because of exigencies that needed Zerubabbel out of the picture. Hence, Jeshua is substituted because for some reason Zerubbabel was no longer present and from this time onward Jerusalem was ostensibly a priestly theocracy.

When we come to Philo we have a reader who wants to read metaphorically, so he takes the text and uses it for his own ends. In Confusion 62 Philo cites Zech 6:12, as it appears in the Greek, so we must accept that it comes from Zech 6:12, which would at least at a literal level mean Jeshua.