Interested if Bart Ehrman discusses the Jesus of Philo in “How Jesus Became God.”
Very important to be able to discredit as much of this as possible, or, we have to go with it.
<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/mwUZOZN-9dc” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
Carrier mentions that Ehrman says Jesus was made was changed to Jesus was born bet. 40 and 42 minutes
(Mary is a Celestial Virgin, not an Earthly Virgin?)
In the OP, the embed is not displaying. Here is the simple URL to the 1 hr lecture:
Ratio Christi Responds:
First, Dr. Carrier claimed the Egyptian Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who lived during the same time as Jesus, wrote about “a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being actually named ‘Jesus.’” This is terribly misleading, if not flat out dishonest. The passage from Philo which Dr. Carrier is referencing states,
“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!” 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. 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.”
For more, see:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Part 4 is also good.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
Interested if Bart Ehrman discusses the Jesus of Philo in “How Jesus Became God.”Very important to be able to discredit as much of this as possible, or, we have to go with it.
<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/mwUZOZN-9dc” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
Carrier mentions that Ehrman says Jesus was made was changed to Jesus was born bet. 40 and 42 minutes
(Mary is a Celestial Virgin, not an Earthly Virgin?)
The passage in Philo clearly refers to Zechariah 6:12. Bart has a comment on 6:11-13 in his recently published Bible Introduction (p.159), where he says that the “branch” in 6:12 is a bit confusing as it may refer to both Joshua and Zerubbabel (real people supposed to be humans on earth). The New Oxford Annotated Bible says in a footnote that “branch” refers to David’s descendant Zerubbabel because of the clear reference to his role as builder of Temple.
What remains is what Philo makes out of this reference. To me it looks like he discusses a person with body and soul (“A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul”), and then goes on in poetic language to praise the concept (East ) as well fitting to the spiritual part of such a person.
To assume that this reference to Zechariah really is about a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial redeemer (or something like that) is not convincing, to put it politely.
According to the ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Zechariah goes back to 520 B.C.
So, wait a second. The temple was already started by the time Zechariah writes: Yes, he will build the Lord’s Temple. So, wouldn’t this have to be a future event, after the Herod-renovated 2nd Temple is destroyed? If Jesus says the Temple will be destroyed, wouldn’t Jesus think it would have to be rebuilt if the Son of Man were to be successful? Did Jesus foresee a post-Temple Judaism Son of Man Kingdom. One would think Jesus’ Son of Man post-Destroyed Temple would still be a Temple Judaism.
“He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. There will also be a priest on His throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two of them. The crown will reside in the Lord’s temple as a memorial to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen son of Zephaniah.” – From Zechariah, Chapter 6.
I’m pretty sure Jesus as Son of Man and Messiah has roots in Zechariah, chapters 8 and 9. So, you’re saying, Chapter 6’s priest on His throne is a different reign from the reign of the Messiah in either chapter 8 or chapter 9?
“while it is clear that Joshua, the crowns, the one who’s name is Branch, etc. are all symbolic of the coming of Jesus the Messiah, there is not a consensus that the Zechariah passage directly references Jesus, much less a cosmic Jesus of some sort.”
– Ratio Christi
BUT, Philo writing so many years after 520 B.C. knows about the need to renovate or rebuild the Temple and whether there would be a crown/king needed. Philo cannot be writing about the state of affairs during his lifetime. The Temple was strong, beautiful, and being finished. “Behold, a Man whose name is East” must refer to the Star Prophecy–the Star in the East. For Jews, that would be a Jewish leader.
When Philo says: “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,” he is telling us not to look to a man of body and soul but to an incorporeal being; hence, a cosmic Joshua/Jesus.
I’ve heard of the notion of Christ existing before the birth of Jesus. Carrier could be pulling in references outside of the Philo passage.
Until Jesus, there was no one to fulfill the International Messiah King hope of Zechariah.
The above statement should remove dissent that the Zechariah passage refers to Jesus. Zechariah’s prophecy fails/is not fulfilled since in history no one else fulfills this but Jesus. Whether Zechariah foresaw Jesus and intended what he foresaw is not binding. The God of the Future may not have explained to Zechariah exactly how God would bring the prophecy into fruition.
In the New Testament Jesus is the Son of Man, the Messiah. He is the fulfillment of Zechariah’s hopes.
Now, if Jesus is not the fulfillment then the scripture was not reliable and that is a fail for Hebrew Scriptures and the God in Hebrew scriptures.
During the Great Tribulation, when Jerusalem is seen to be surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand.
“Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city,
for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled.
[While some people were behaving in a way which would call down the punishment of God, in Jesus’ mind and speech (according to this New Testament verse), those days of the Great Tribulation, which was the Jewish Civil War and Revolt, was the apocalyptic verdict that all Hebrew scriptures in their fullness were wrongs or crimes deserving punishment. Punished it was: so many zealots for scripture were killed; the Temple and Temple Judaism were destroyed; and, Israel, including the City of David, was captured by its victors. Judaism continued but not with a global theocracy of Temple Judaism.]
If Zechariah’s prophecy and scripture were brought to fulfillment without an International Messiah justifying them, then it was a wrong and a crime to have people revering these scriptures, giving them false hopes.
When Jesus saw that he was going to be crucified instead of supported by Temple authorities, Pharisees and scribes to be some sort of leader in the kingdom he tried to manifest, he didn’t see any other candidate for the role. Hence, Jesus became very destructive in outlook for Temple Judaism and the scriptures. The Temple will be destroyed and Israel will be punished for the less than satisfactory way its scriptures were fulfilled is pretty much his message.
Is there evidence that the agricultural dying and rising savior became personalized to a personal savior?
The length of days, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, surely has been personalized to a personal savior given the Winter Solstice is Christmas and the Spring Equinox is Easter.
Ratio Christi attempting to refute the connection between the personalization of agricultural cults into the Personal Savior of Jesus:
(1) its insistence on historical credibility, which the mysteries didn’t even pretend to have, versus the ‘going nowhere’ view of the vegetation cycle [many pagan religions revolved around the death and new life of the growing seasons];
(4) the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the coming resurrection of believers [emphasized as real historical events].
= = =
My response:
Since we do not have the resurrection of believers, we’re back to the vegetation cycle of reincarnation where, effectively, one, in body, “goes nowhere.” So, the dying and rising savior of agriculture can be personalized into a reincarnating existence.
Bart Ehrman (blogging about Matthew):
Among Jews in the first century there was not just *one* set of expectations concerning their future deliverer. I have already indicated that many hoped for a future king like David, who would lead his people to military victory over their oppressors and establish Israel as a sovereign state in the Promised Land; others anticipated the appearance of a cosmic figure on the clouds of heaven, coming in judgment on the earth; yet others looked forward to an authoritative priest who would guide the community through divinely inspired interpretations of the Mosaic law. One other form that the future deliverer sometimes took is of particular relevance for understanding Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus. For some Jews hoped that a prophet would appear who would be like Moses, who had not only brought salvation from the hated oppressors of Israel, the Egyptians who had enslaved them for 400 years, but had also disclosed the law of God to his people. Indeed, according to the ancient traditions, Moses himself had said that there would be another prophet like him who would arise among his people (Deut 18:15-19). The hope for a messianic figure like Moses, one chosen by God to bring salvation and new direction, was very much alive among some Jews in the first century.
Steefen: So why shouldn’t we have a cosmic Jesus by Philo and Paul, Jesus, or Richard Carrier?
O M G:
Hi [Richard Carrier],
I just searched “Cosmic Jesus” on your blog. Nothing came up. I brought up your UNC – Greensboro debate on Ehrman’s paid blog, reader forums. I also posted on Ratio Christi’s blog. Basically, what I’m saying is that
although Philo knows the state of the Temple (it doesn’t need to be built by Zerubabel or Joshua),
he does ask the reader not to look to a man of body and soul but an incorporeal man.
So far, Philo is talking about a cosmic entity.
Just because Jesus aspires to be the Son of Man – Messiah
and just because Christians aspire to make Jesus Son of Man – Messiah
does not make Philo speak of Jesus.
The roles may be the same but who occupies the role are not necessarily the same
and that’s where your argument becomes weak.
Basically, I can say, historically, the role was not fulfilled by Jesus;
Philo does not mention Jesus by name; hence, the author himself is not speaking of Jesus.
What say you? Hopefully, you do have a good blog post on this somewhere.
Steefen
Response from Richard Carrier:
Philo says the angel he speaks of is the same person called Jesus in Zech. 6.
Philo well knew that figure was named Jesus. It cannot be claimed he was ignorant of that.
But Philo was not aware of the fact that Christians had taken this angel and equated him with the messiah.
That was a Christian innovation. That Philo was unaware of that innovation is irrelevant to anything I argue, as I only argue the angel already existed in Jewish theology (Philo proves that; not just the name, but several peculiar attributes of the figure are the same in Philo, so we know Christians were talking about the same angel even apart from its name). The rest the Christians added (which is what distinguishes their sect from all other Jewish sects).
Reply from Stephen to Richard
Your response just gave me the chills. Let me tell you why. Bart Ehrman said Paul said Jesus was an angel. Thank you. I think ideas are there for the connecting somehow. Paul says Jesus is an angel. Philo says Jesus was an angel. …
Dr. Ehrman, Dr. Ehrman !
Philo supports your claim that Paul saw Jesus as an Angel because Philo had a similar concept? Paul didn’t make up the Jesus as angel notion?
Steefen said
O M G:Hi [Richard Carrier],
I just searched “Cosmic Jesus” on your blog. Nothing came up. I brought up your UNC – Greensboro debate on Ehrman’s paid blog, reader forums. I also posted on Ratio Christi’s blog. Basically, what I’m saying is that
although Philo knows the state of the Temple (it doesn’t need to be built by Zerubabel or Joshua),
he does ask the reader not to look to a man of body and soul but an incorporeal man.
So far, Philo is talking about a cosmic entity.Just because Jesus aspires to be the Son of Man – Messiah
and just because Christians aspire to make Jesus Son of Man – Messiah
does not make Philo speak of Jesus.The roles may be the same but who occupies the role are not necessarily the same
and that’s where your argument becomes weak.
Basically, I can say, historically, the role was not fulfilled by Jesus;
Philo does not mention Jesus by name; hence, the author himself is not speaking of Jesus.
What say you? Hopefully, you do have a good blog post on this somewhere.
SteefenResponse from Richard Carrier:
Philo says the angel he speaks of is the same person called Jesus in Zech. 6.
Philo well knew that figure was named Jesus. It cannot be claimed he was ignorant of that.But Philo was not aware of the fact that Christians had taken this angel and equated him with the messiah.
That was a Christian innovation. That Philo was unaware of that innovation is irrelevant to anything I argue, as I only argue the angel already existed in Jewish theology (Philo proves that; not just the name, but several peculiar attributes of the figure are the same in Philo, so we know Christians were talking about the same angel even apart from its name). The rest the Christians added (which is what distinguishes their sect from all other Jewish sects).
Reply from Stephen to Richard
Your response just gave me the chills. Let me tell you why. Bart Ehrman said Paul said Jesus was an angel. Thank you. I think ideas are there for the connecting somehow. Paul says Jesus is an angel. Philo says Jesus was an angel. …
Dr. Ehrman, Dr. Ehrman !
Philo supports your claim that Paul saw Jesus as an Angel because Philo had a similar concept? Paul didn’t make up the Jesus as angel notion?
Let me give you a hint. Read the paragraph in Philo just before the one being quoted and debated, and observe the use of the concept of “East” in that paragraph. This is called “reading something in its proper context”. In the light of the use of the concept of “East” in that preceding paragraph, which biblical person do you think Philo is hinting at in the end of the next paragraph (the one frequently quoted), when using the same concept? In doing so, also please take notice of Philo’s position as a Platonic philosopher, trying to merge Mosaic religion and Plato.
There is really only one problem, and that is why he seams to be referring to a phrase found in Zechariah, based on the greek rendering of the word for “branch” in the Septuagint.
On the Confusion of Tongues or A Treatise on the Confusion of Languages by Philo
XIV. (60) 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. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth.
(61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: “And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,”{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable.
(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.} 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.
= = =
Gavriel,
This still points to an agreement between Philo and Paul. In 62, the man whose name is East is Jesus. In 61, the only man who was in the Garden of Eden planted in the East was Adam. Paul clearly says Jesus is a new Adam.
“Last Adam”
Twice in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **:22, Paul argues that “as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive,” while in verse 45 he calls Jesus the “last Adam”.
Steefen said
On the Confusion of Tongues or A Treatise on the Confusion of Languages by PhiloXIV. (60) 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. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth.
(61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: “And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,”{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable.
(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.} 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.
= = =
Gavriel,
This still points to an agreement between Philo and Paul. In 62, the man whose name is East is Jesus. In 61, the only man who was in the Garden of Eden planted in the East was Adam. Paul clearly says Jesus is a new Adam.
“Last Adam”
Twice in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **:22, Paul argues that “as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive,” while in verse 45 he calls Jesus the “last Adam”.
The passage in Philo is most likely about Adam, viewed by a Platonic , Jewish philosopher who is speculating on the soul-qualities of Adam. Paul, on the other hand, says that Jesus had a pre-existence as an angelic being (or he probably thought so), then that he had an existence as an earthly human being in the flesh, was crucified on earth and next elevated to a very high standing in the heavenly realm. That is the christology of Paul. So it cannot be used to infer that there was pre-Christian Jewish tradition about a celestial redeemer called Joshua or Jeshua or any other variant spelling.
Zechariah 6, on the other hand, describes two earthly persons, the High Priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel, and the Septuagint “East” (based on the Hebrew original “branch” or ‘semah’ ) may refer to one or both of them. If Philo really has an allusion to these two people, then they are certainly not a demonstration of a belief in celestial beings, but a reference to earthly leaders.
I think we can conclude: The attempt to establish a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being called Jesus from these passages is not following the rules of critical scholarship. Pointing to superficial similarities like this is much more related to … haggadic midrash. Before one attempts to read between the lines, one must learn to read the lines themselves.
Gavriel: one must learn to read the lines themselves.
Steefen: Must one? These are the important lines:
“Behold, a man whose name is the East!” A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if [and I prefer that] 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.
He is not speculating on the soul qualities of Adam who had a body and soul.
Philo at “but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being” is directing the reader’s attention away from a man with body and soul to one who does not have a body and in no respect differs from the divine image. Critical scholarship of these lines must address what is there.
Steefen said
Gavriel: one must learn to read the lines themselves.Steefen: Must one? These are the important lines:
“Behold, a man whose name is the East!” A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if [and I prefer that] 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.
He is not speculating on the soul qualities of Adam who had a body and soul.
Philo at “but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being” is directing the reader’s attention away from a man with body and soul to one who does not have a body and in no respect differs from the divine image. Critical scholarship of these lines must address what is there.
To me it looks like he writing about Adam, and Philo was a platonic philosopher. Platonic philosophers tends to see the apparent world as a copy or reflection of an ideal world behind it. Whatever his speculations on Adam really meant, they would be his philosophic speculations on the nature of Adam, and not point to a a pre-Christian, Jewish tradition in the same fashion.
The only reason *someone* has tried to make this philosophical speculation on the nature of Adam into a an old Jewish tradition about a celestial, other-worldly Jesus is the possible hint to the Zechariah. Zechariah is prophesying on the “branch” which will become a great future leader in this world, here on earth, and names two candidates in a confused fashion. One of them is Joshua the high priest, transliterated as ‘iesous’ in the Septuagint, the other is Zerubbabel, of Davidic descent. The “branch”- concept refers to a descendent of David, and is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. In other words, there is no celestial, other-wordly Jesus in Zechariah. The Zechariah-passage possibly attests to a development of various types of Messianic figures. As times passed , various other ideas on the nature of the Messiah developed within the Jewish culture, including some of supernatural origin, like in Daniel. Common to all is the expectation of a ruler of Israel.
The only problem is why Philo connects the Jewish belief in a messianic real-world figure with his philosophical musings on the nature of Adam. I think we have to look for an explanation in the nature of Philo’s philosophy.
moose said
Although I also think Jesus never existed, I feel Carrier has lost his ground contact. He is floating around in outer space just listening to his own thoughts. Mr. Ehrman can easily refute his elaborate revelations.
When Jacob said the nation of the Hebrews would end with the coming Messiah, and Daniel said the Messiah would be cut off by the nation that destroys the temple and Jerusalem – who do YOU think these authors were referring to?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)