WAIT A SECOND
This is how Carrier connects the Zechariah passage to the Philo passage.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
On a debate with Mark Goodacre on Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable ** you do not have permission to see this link **, at 47:45 in the broadcast,
Carrier said: “We do have a reference to a pre-existent being named Jesus who was the first born son of God, who was the high priest of the celestial temple, just like Hebrews explains, and was also called the logos, the word of God, and this is in Philo; Philo refers to this deity several times, this – deity’s perhaps the wrong word, he’s an archangel in Philo’s vocabulary – who’s named Jesus.”
So where is “Jesus” in all that? Nowhere to be seen in the quote. However, some scholars remarked some similar wording between Philo’s writing and the OT book of Zechariah, 6:11-12. And Carrier picked up on that according to what he wrote again in Not the Impossible Faith, p. 250-1:
“Likewise with Zechariah 6:11-13, which not only says Jesus will “build the temple of the Lord,” but “he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne.”
Next is a Septuagint translation of Zechariah 6:11-15:
“And thou shalt take silver and gold, and make crowns, and thou shalt put them upon the head of Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest; 12 and thou [Zechariah] shalt say to him [Jesus son of Josedec], Thus saith the Lord Almighty; Behold the man whose name is the Branch [better translated as “Rises” or “Rising” or “bud”]; and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord. 13 And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between them both. 14 And the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it, and for the favor of the son of Sophonias, and for a psalm in the house of the Lord. 15 And they that are far from them shall come and build in the house of the Lord, and ye shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you: and this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord your God”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
I could have mentioned this earlier, but with the priest sitting at the right hand of royalty, I am hearing, You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power.
Comments?
Carrier is again into the “imagine” mode and depending on false evidence in order to make his case.
Finally, a very diplomatic note from Doherty:
In Element 40 (pages 200-205), Carrier comes back on the same, but involving Philo of Alexandria a lot more, and is quite affirmative from the very beginning:
“In fact, the Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God’ called the Logos, who was God’s true high priest in heaven, was also not novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews [I agree with this statement];
and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6),
[Note: I certainly do not agree that Philo, or any others, connected Philo’s Logos with a mortal or celestial Jesus from Zechariah. There is no evidence for that]
and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus because Paul’s contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy Zech. 6.12 in just such a way. [Note: how would Carrier know that? Just through tenuous & convoluted series of suppositions, products of his tendentious imagination]
Later, Carrier was even more overly affirmative on the topic ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (no more necessity to pesher!):
“Philo explicitly says the person in Zechariah 6 is that Logos. And that person in Zechariah 6 is named Jesus, in the very passage Philo quotes a portion of. He explicitly says that personage is the archangelic Logos (and all the other attributes matching Jesus). This is not an inference I am making. It’s what Philo is explicitly saying.” [I say Carrier is very wrong here.]
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Still, Philo is giving us a Logos, first born son of god, first angel.
The gospels give us a first born son–being the only begotten son of god–and
Paul gives us an angel; so,
The New Testament IS giving us Jesus, Philo’s Logos, first born son of god, first angel.
Until someone comes along and explain how Jesus was not, as in Zechariah, the priest sitting at the right hand of royalty, Zechariah IS a connector between the New Testament Jesus and Philo’s Logos, first born son of god, first angel–and probably cosmic high priest.
Robert said
Steefen said
For a recapitulation, Philo did not name that Jesus or reference the saying to Zechariah, or a prophet, or something/somebody to be read. He only borrowed “Rises” (‘anatole’) from a saying as allegedly heard spoken from a Jew in order to apply it to his incorporeal being.Not quite. Philo does quote the Greek translation Zechariah 6,12, but Carrier thinks Philo understood it as being a reference to Joshua the high priest rather than to Zerubbabel.
Steefen said, quoting Bernard.
= = =
Wikipedia entry for Zerubbabel – in Zechariah
Zechariah
Falling in line with the rest of the twelve prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible (the Nevi’im), the book of Zechariah describes a hope for a future king, beyond the current leader Zerubbabel, and further establishes a portrayal of this future king. Anthony Petterson argues that the standard explanation of Haggai and Zechariah’s prophecies, in which Zerubbabel was supposed to be the restorer of the Davidic dynasty but never fulfilled these expectations, does not actually stand as an explanation of the final form of these texts.
Zerubbabel’s name is mentioned four times throughout Zechariah 1–8, and all of these instances occur in one short oracle written in ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Any other references to Zerubbabel throughout this book are guesses or theories as to his significance. Zechariah 4:1–3 gives a vision that was had by Zechariah of a lampstand with a bowl on it. Upon that are seven lamps, each with seven lips. There are two olive trees, one to the right of the bowl and one to the left. The explanation, told by the angel that Zechariah is conversing with, is as follows:
“This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘Who are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain! And he shall bring forth the capstone with shouts of “Grace, grace to it!”‘ (Zech 4:6–7)
“The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. … The seven are the eyes of the Lord, which range through the whole earth … the two olive trees … are the two sons of oil (anointed ones) who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” (Zech 4:9–14)
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Now, this relates to what I want to know:
There is a debate in the biblical scholarly community as to who the “sons of oil” is referencing. Though conventional wisdom often understood it to be Zerubbabel and ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The controversy regarding the prophesies about Zerubbabel relate back to this quote about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and eventually completing it. Zech 3:8 and 6:12 refer to a man called “The Branch.” In ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the Lord tells Zechariah to gather silver and gold from the returned exiles (who had come back to Judah from Babylonia), and to go to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah (members of the Davidic lineage). Then Zechariah is told to fashion a crown out of the silver and gold, set it on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, and tell him the following:
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch (Hebrew: Zemah): for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord … he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them.” (Zech 6:12–13)
It is unclear whether or not “the Branch” refers to Zerubbabel. Should this have been the intention of the author, then the restoration of the Davidic line of kings would be imminent, as Zerubbabel is a member of the line of David (1 Chron 3:19–20). There is some evidence for this link, namely that Zerubbabel was the governor of Judah at the time of Zechariah, he was frequently associated with Joshua (Ezra 3:2, 3:8), and he is also described as the Temple builder (Zech 4:9). However, there are several reasons that complicate this association. The first is that Joshua is the one crowned, not the Branch. The next is that Zerubbabel is not mentioned. The third is that the references to Zemah appear to anticipate a future event, while Zerubbabel existed in the present.** you do not have permission to see this link **
Joshua and Zerubbabel were contemporaries of Zechariah.
Zechariah was active 520 – 518 BCE.
According to the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** soon after.
In all of the accounts in the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (Jeshua) son of Jozadak (Jehozadak).
= = =
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
So the gospel writers were making the biblical Jesus a Joshua, son of Jozadak?
The biblical Jesus, “temple builder,” needed a credible reference back to the high priest, Joshua, son of Jozadak.
Robert said
[Hurtado says] Carrier fulminates but gives an inaccurate representation of the Philo text [Robert says he gives an inaccurate representation of the Zechariah text].
There’s no contradiction here since Philo is quoting a line from the Greek text of Zechariah. I also pointed out to Carrier that he was misunderstanding Philo’s use of ἀνατολή as a Stichwort, which he eventually tacitly accepted, but then claimed this was irrelevant to his [irrelevant] argument.
Steefen
Who is saying there is a contradiction?
Hurtado says Carrier gives an inaccurate representation of the Philo text AND Robert says he gives an inaccurate representation of the Zechariah text.
Philo / On the Confusion of Tongues
(62) 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.
NET Bible, Zechariah 6: 12
Then say to him, ‘The LORD who rules over all says, “Look–here is the man whose name is Branch, who will sprout up from his place and build the temple of the LORD.
Philo / On the Confusion of Tongues
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.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
When considering a man whose name is East, think of Zechariah 6: 12, a man whose name is Branch. He will sprout up and build the temple of the Lord. Do not consider a man of body and soul, consider that incorporeal being of divine image.
Philo / On the Confusion of Tongues
(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.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The Father of the universe sprung him up as the eldest son, firstborn, he is an agent of species creation.
Philo / On the Confusion of Tongues
(146) firstborn word, eldest of angels, the great archangel of many names including being called the Word
(147) we deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, his most sacred word, for God’s image is his word.
Philo / On Dreams
(1.215) There seems to be two temples of God 1) this world in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son and 2) the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man.
Richard Carrier
This archangel Jesus from Zechariah Chapter 6:
He was the firstborn son of god. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
He was the celestial image of god. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
He was god’s agent of creation. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
He was god’s celestial high priest. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist criticizing Richard Carrier
Richard should have brought in Galatians 4: 14. Bart Ehrman said, there, Paul is not contrasting Christ to an angel, he is equating him to an angel. Susan Garrett, author of No Ordinary Angel: Celestial Spirits and Christian Claims about Jesus, goes a step further and argues that Gal. 4: 14 indicates that Paul “identifies [Jesus Christ] with God’s chief angel” [p. 11].
Larry Hurtado
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Carrier fulminates but gives an inaccurate representation of the Philo text [Robert says he gives an inaccurate representation of the Zechariah text].
Philo does comment on ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Zechariah orders crowns plural, not crown singular because he predicts and praises the appearance of two figures, not one figure:
1) Joshua
2) branch/shoot, a royal figure who will rebuild the temple and sit on a throne.
The priest will sit at the right side of royalty.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
I do not see where “The priest will sit at the right side of royalty.”
Steefen said
Richard CarrierThis archangel Jesus from Zechariah Chapter 6: …
Robert
But, again, there is no archangel Joshua/Jesus in Zecharaiah 6
Steefen
You made the point once? Good. It is there in my post because I am referencing his slide, criticizing it for not listing the Galatians verse.
Robert
See Zech. 6:13
Steefen
Berean Study Bible:
Yes, He will build the temple of the LORD; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. And He will be a priest on His throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two.’
Let me see if another version or translation has what you say.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Indeed, he will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed in splendor, sitting as king on his throne. Moreover, there will be a priest with him on his throne and they will see eye to eye on everything.
No, that’s not it. Let’s try another.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Yea, he doth build the temple of Jehovah, And he doth bear away honour, And he hath sat and ruled on His throne, And hath been a priest on His throne, And a counsel of peace is between both.
No, let’s try another.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between them both.
Finally.
Hm, my Catholic Study Bible does not reference Zechariah 6: 13 at Mark 14: 62 and bible hub does not cross reference Zech 6: 13.
I forgot. Let me see if I can remember.
If the gospel writers are referring to to scripture, Zechariah, would Jesus be the branch of royalty that builds the temple or the high priest at the right hand of royalty? Well, in Zechariah, isn’t Joshua the priest?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)