stephan huller

No. What I was saying was that if spin suggests that Zechariah was altered to reduce the significance of Zerubbabel (a view I accept) Philo's translation could - like many other passages in our existing LXX go back to earlier (better) translations of the text. This is especially true when the LXX agrees with the Samaritan reading against the Masoretic. You can't agree with spin and then throw out the implications of his argument where it is no longer useful.

Then I went on to demonstrate in a subsequent post that if you accept that the Greek translation that Philo had agreed with the existing texts (as opposed to the lost, original Hebrew proposed by spin) how do you get around the fact that the 'Jesus' in this text is said to be the son of someone living 500 years before Jesus Christ and thousands of years after the creation of the firstborn Logos?

andrewcriddle

Can I just clarify the point about Zechariah 6:13 in the LXX.

The Greek is which translates as This implies that he (the branch/rising) is a king who will have a priest beside him to give him wise counsel which he will accept. I.E. the branch/rising is not himself a priest althiough he will follow the advice and counsel of a priest.

Hence the branch/rising probably cannot (in the LXX) be identified with Joshua/Jesus the high priest.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Even the Hebrew translates as :-
'Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak.'

And you can't crown a priest and make him a king, so it definitely is not Joshua who has a crown set on his head.

I wonder what the name of the person was who was made a king by having a crown of silver and gold set upon his head?

I guess we will never know.

andrewcriddle

The same person can be a priest and a king see for example Melchizedek.

However if Joshua is the branch/rising then according to the LXX he is a king with a priest to give him advice, despite being himself high priest. This seems improbable.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

The classic Lord Jesus Christ is obviously both a priest and a king. Justinian's Emperor Christ, and Christ intercedes for us - a priestly function.

Philo may not himself have joined the dots up, but the xians did. This is its usp.

Arguably the cross is a further symbol of this - one direction up to God, the kingly function, the other horizontal, the priestly function, caring for his flock.

Interestingly, the Queen has both roles!

Clivedurdle

http://kottke.org/10/12/james-burkes-connections-online

aa5874

Attempts to use Zechariah 6.12 as reference to Joshua as a "celestial High Priest" is completely flawed.

Joshua is the son of Josedech in Hebrew Scripture who supposedly LIVED during the time of the Prophet Haggai in the second year of the reign of Darius the King and may have been involved in the re-building of the Jewish Temple.

Haggai 1:1 KJVHaggai 1:12 KJV Haggai 2:2 KJVHaggai 2:4 KJV In Hebrew Scripture, Joshua the son of Josedech is NOT celestial at all.

Zechariah 6:11 KJV Again, we have examples of passages of Hebrew Scripture taken completely out of context by isolating a single verse in Zechariah when the very book BEFORE Zechariah gives details of Joshua, the son of Josedech, the high priest.

In Hebrew Scripture the Prophet Haggai personally knew Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and did personally dialogue with him.

Clivedurdle

Possibly, but that does not stop someone coming along later and concluding that, and then creating a new superstitio out of that conclusion. We have more than enough scraps to create Yahweh's anointed king Joshua.

aa5874

Well, up to the end of the 1st century the Jews did NOT claim Jeshua, the son of Josedec, the high Priest was Celestial based on Josephus who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE.

Jews claimed Jeshua, the son of Josedec, was involved in building an altar and the Jewish Temple.

Examine Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 11.4.1-2 Zechariah 6.12 has nothing whatsoever to do with a celestial high priest and we know the exact book, chapter and verse that was used to fabricate the birth of Jesus on EARTH.

It was ISAIAH 7.14.

Isaiah 7:14 RSV Immanuel means "God with us".

Examine the Pauline writings. It is NOT Zechariah 6.12 but Isaiah 7.14.

Galatians 4:4 NRSA

spin

The alteration of Zech 6 happened when the implications of the narrative were still in play. This was one of those prophecies where the writer could hope for a foreseeable conclusion, as also seen in the prophecies concerning the end of the Seleucid oppression. The end was in sight but the details were still unclear, so the date of the end got changed and changed again. The loss of the Davidic pretender caught Jerusalem by surprise. The prophecy in Zech got stitched up and then the tradition got abandoned with changed exigencies. This was well before the translations into Greek and the Samaritan texts still formed part of the Yahweh religious spectrum. You would be extremely hopeful to expect survival of an Ur-text of Zechariah.

You seem to be imputing some idea here that doesn't derive from me. All I noted for those people trying to work too hard with Zechariah was that the text is not transparent because of the signs of a power reshuffle.

I don't think Philo employed 6:12 for Jesus Christ, but the process involved in the literary developments here are the reuse of older texts, as we've seen so frequently. Think of the king coming riding on a donkey from Zech 9:9 or the young woman who will become pregnant. Was Philo the only thinker of the era to consider Zech 6:12 with some overladen meaning applying the Jeshua/Joshua/Jesus of the verse to wrought theological needs?

Nevertheless Jesus son of Jozedek was god's anointed who became the ruler of his (god's) kingdom on earth and is a model both in name and position for messianic speculation to feed on. One branch of messianism absorbed logos speculation, as it is manifested in christianity. This should suggest that Philo was not along in turning over logos ideas in Judaic circles.