Couldn’t he have warned you of something more useful, like tsunamis or mass murders? Or reveal to you the cure for cancer or something?

😉

The entire talk from Greensboro is now up on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

I was there at the talk and I thought Carrier did a good job of explaining the case against historicity in an evenhanded way.

No, you have not answered my arguments. Your answers amount in every case to “I am saying all these things are just total coincidences.” Which is extremely improbable. That’s the end of it. You don’t seem willing to even address it.

You are simply continuing to ignore all my arguments. You are especially not answering the arguments from improbability at all. This is like talking to a wall.

I have answered your arguments from improbability. I addressed each of the elements that your arguments from improbability rested upon. I explained how those elements did not correspond to your presentation/interpretation of them.

For example, “Jesus the son of Jehovah is righteous” is essentially what I am saying Philo is reading in the text;

Correct. This is what you are saying Philo is reading in the text.

he thus identifies this figure as the firstborn son figure he often elsewhere speaks about.

Philo identifies the character named “Anatolê” as being “the firstborn son.” However, the Zechariah scholars I referenced earlier explain that the context of Zechariah indicates that Jesus, the son of “Jehovah is righteous,” is not the same personage as the figure named “Anatolê.”

Your arguments simply ignore what I am actually saying here. Likewise, it’s very improbable Philo would quote a sentence spoken of “Jesus the son of Jehovah is righteous” and say it was spoken of the actual son of Jehovah who is righteous, unless that’s not a coincidence.

Philo does not call the character named “Anatolê” “righteous” in “On the Confusion of Tongues.”

Therefore, by definition, it probably is not a coincidence. As for this argument, so for all others. You are just hell bent on ignoring this and never responding to it, and instead raising irrelevant issues in the hopes people will not notice the arguments you aren’t answering. That is Christian apologetics, not scholarship.

I write the following with respect, but with firmness. I have answered your arguments. You, by contrast, have not replied to the main argument I have made, nor the arguments I presented in my most recent responses. In addition, you have not answered the questions I have posed to you in my last two replies. In light of all of these factors, I rest my case. It is simply inaccurate to claim that Philo calls the figure “Jesus” in “On the Confusion of Tongues”14.62.

Kind regards,

Fpvflyer

You are simply continuing to ignore all my arguments. You are especially not answering the arguments from improbability at all. This is like talking to a wall. For example, “Jesus the son of Jehovah is righteous” is essentially what I am saying Philo is reading in the text; he thus identifies this figure as the firstborn son figure he often elsewhere speaks about. Your arguments simply ignore what I am actually saying here. Likewise, it’s very improbable Philo would quote a sentence spoken of “Jesus the son of Jehovah is righteous” and say it was spoken of the actual son of Jehovah who is righteous, unless that’s not a coincidence. Therefore, by definition, it probably is not a coincidence. As for this argument, so for all others. You are just hell bent on ignoring this and never responding to it, and instead raising irrelevant issues in the hopes people will not notice the arguments you aren’t answering. That is Christian apologetics, not scholarship.

(1) Philo indicates he is aware the phrase refers to a man, and then says he rejects that interpretation because it would be an odd thing to say of a man; then he concludes it refers to the same Logos superbeing that he talks about here and several other places.

Philo indicates he is aware that the phrase refers to a man, but he does not mention Zechariah. Remember, Philo does not attribute the quotation to Zechariah. Instead, Philo attributes the quotation to one of Moses’s companions (14.62). It is not surprising that Philo is aware that this figure is called a man, because the quote itself calls the figure a man.

(2) My argument does not require Philo to reject the context of either Zech. 3 or 6. It only requires that he is reinterpreting it.

If Philo cared about all of the details in the context, then he would not need to reinterpret the context at all. You are effectively saying that Philo picks and chooses which portions of the context to apply to the celestial figure he discusses. Consequently, you are picking and choosing which aspects to believe Philo chose to apply to the figure named anatolê, such as the name “Jesus.” This exposes a contradiction in your reasoning leading to the conclusion that Philo would have assumed the figure’s name was “Jesus.” Therefore, the question still remains: If Philo picks and chooses which portions to highlight from the context, then why didn’t he choose to mention the name “Jesus”?

And since that is what he himself indicates he is doing, my theory requires no ad hoc assumptions. It is plainly what he is doing.

Philo does not say he is reinterpreting the context of Zechariah.

(3) Zechariah 3:5 describes the crowning of Jesus before God.

Zechariah 3:5 states, “And I said, ‘Let them set a clean turban upon his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of YHWH was standing by.” No crowns are mentioned here.

(4) Your assumption that different men are called Anatolê in Zech. 3 and 6 is implausible. Both scenes have God crowning the same Jesus and announcing his future rule. In 6 he clearly names him Anatolê. Thus, when he names his servant Anatolê in 3, this is clearly (and would clearly be to Philo) the same event–the same name, for the same man, for performing the same role (especially since Philo says anyone with the name Anatolê is the Logos; so he clearly did not think there were two different men by that name). Again, to argue otherwise requires arguing against all natural probability. Thus, your position requires improbabilities that my position does not. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is just one among many improbabilities you keep stacking up to try and maintain your position.

Why didn’t you interact with any of the arguments the Zechariah scholars provide for differentiating Joshua from the man named “Anatolê” in Zechariah 3 and 6?

(5) Zech. 3:11 is in the Septuagint, and the Septuagint is what Philo is quoting.

The verse numbering may vary from one version of the Septuagint to another. The version I utilize lacks Zechariah 3:11. Zechariah 3 concludes with verse 10. I consult the following edition:

Septuaginta. Ed. Alfred Rahlfs. Editio altera by Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Which edition of the Greek critical text of the Septuagint are you using?

(6) I’ve said this before and shouldn’t have to say again: yes, Zechariah understood 3 and 6 to be about someone else. It is Philo who is reinterpreting it to mean the Logos superbeing (and thus, obviously, not the guy Zechariah originally meant).

Correct. Why doesn’t Philo’s reinterpretation include the name “Jesus”?

(7) “Remember that the aforementioned scholars explain that theophoric names are sentences, not titles.” — this is where you are reading what isn’t there; quote even one of those scholars as saying these are never titles, in the sense I am using (don’t straw man me by using the word “title” in a different sense than is relevant to my translation).

None of these scholars need to explicitly state that Hebrew theophoric personal names are never titles in the sense you are using the term. If Hebrew theophoric personal names are by their very nature sentences, they are not titles in the sense that you are utilizing the term. Dana M. Pike, who wrote a doctoral thesis on Hebrew theophoric personal names, specifies that theophoric names “represent declarations about or expressions of petition to the deity mentioned in the name.” 1. Declarations and petitions are sentences, not titles. On pages 1018 and 1019, Pike lists the following translations as examples from the Hebrew Bible and Israelite inscriptions:

“God hears [requests].”

“YHWH is my light.”

“YHWH is my [divine] father.”

“(My) [divine] father is a lamp.”

“YHWH is my [divine] brother.”

“My lord is exalted.”

“YHWH is my lord.”

“My king is exalted.”

In accordance with this, Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers render the name under discussion as “Yahweh is just,” in The Anchor Bible commentary on Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. 2. In the monograph Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, Jeaneane D. Fowler writes, “BH y(eh) osadaq, ‘Y is just or righteous’, cf. BDB, 221, KB, 379, 386, Geh, 521, IPN, 189.” 3. “YHWH is just” or “YHWH is righteous” are, therefore, the only correct possible translations.

(8) The issue is not that the relative pronoun “who” is in the word; neither is the verb “is” in the word. You are surely aware of what a translation is. Yet you get to translate with words that aren’t there and I do not, apparently. That’s called a double standard. Typical Christian apologetic tactic. What I am saying is that both translations are the same (i.e. there is no actual distinction between them in the Hebrew, when words are formed this way). Therefore, there is no distinction here for you to draw. You are attempting to make something out of nothing.

The fact is that “mi” (Mem, Hireq, and Yod combined mean “who”) is not present. The point of this fact is that readers should not expect “mi” to be present in this name. No double standard is involved. There is a difference between a proper translation and an improper translation. The word “is” makes a sentence out of the theophoric personal name. Your proposed translation, which includes the term “who,” however, does not form a sentence. Instead, it turns the theophoric personal name into a sentence fragment.

Kind regards,

Fpvflyer

Endnotes:

1. Dana M. Pike, “Names, Theophoric,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 4 (Doubleday, 1992), 1018.

2. The Anchor Bible Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers (New York, London: Doubleday, 1987), 16.

3. Jeaneane D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 80.

A question: about Testimonium flavianum, Goldberg writes:

The coincidences may be due to a Christian interpolator who altered the
Testimonium, or forged it entire, under the influence of the Emmaus narrative.
This proposal has the weakness of supposing that a writer capable of imitating
Josephus’ style and daring enough to alter his manuscript would at the same
time employ non-Josephan expressions and adhere rather closely to a New
Testament text. A forger of the required skill should have been able to shake free
of such influences.
(quote from The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D.)

The problematicity of Testimonium, if it is autentic or not, if it is independent (if autentic) source or not implies that the best conclusion is pure agnosticism about Jesus historicity? How can you be sure that, if Testimonium was autentic, it is not an independent source (thoug admitting a common Christian source for Josephus and Luke)?
For example, Crossan sees 3 basic steps common to Josephus and Tacitus:
Movement
Execution
Continuation
Expansion
like it’s described here: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/crossans-proofs-that-jesus-did-exist/

Sure it’s not a coincidence?

(1) Philo indicates he is aware the phrase refers to a man, and then says he rejects that interpretation because it would be an odd thing to say of a man; then he concludes it refers to the same Logos superbeing that he talks about here and several other places.

(2) My argument does not require Philo to reject the context of either Zech. 3 or 6. It only requires that he is reinterpreting it. And since that is what he himself indicates he is doing, my theory requires no ad hoc assumptions. It is plainly what he is doing.

(3) Zechariah 3:5 describes the crowning of Jesus before God.

(4) Your assumption that different men are called Anatolê in Zech. 3 and 6 is implausible. Both scenes have God crowning the same Jesus and announcing his future rule. In 6 he clearly names him Anatolê. Thus, when he names his servant Anatolê in 3, this is clearly (and would clearly be to Philo) the same event–the same name, for the same man, for performing the same role (especially since Philo says anyone with the name Anatolê is the Logos; so he clearly did not think there were two different men by that name). Again, to argue otherwise requires arguing against all natural probability. Thus, your position requires improbabilities that my position does not. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is just one among many improbabilities you keep stacking up to try and maintain your position.

(5) Zech. 3:11 is in the Septuagint, and the Septuagint is what Philo is quoting.

(6) I’ve said this before and shouldn’t have to say again: yes, Zechariah understood 3 and 6 to be about someone else. It is Philo who is reinterpreting it to mean the Logos superbeing (and thus, obviously, not the guy Zechariah originally meant).

(7) “Remember that the aforementioned scholars explain that theophoric names are sentences, not titles.” — this is where you are reading what isn’t there; quote even one of those scholars as saying these are never titles, in the sense I am using (don’t straw man me by using the word “title” in a different sense than is relevant to my translation).

(8) The issue is not that the relative pronoun “who” is in the word; neither is the verb “is” in the word. You are surely aware of what a translation is. Yet you get to translate with words that aren’t there and I do not, apparently. That’s called a double standard. Typical Christian apologetic tactic. What I am saying is that both translations are the same (i.e. there is no actual distinction between them in the Hebrew, when words are formed this way). Therefore, there is no distinction here for you to draw. You are attempting to make something out of nothing.

Philo himself says that he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation (that a mere ordinary historical man is being described) and adopting an esoteric explanation of the scene instead (that this figure is not a man but a celestial being, in fact a particular celestial being Philo repeatedly talks about as fundamental to Jewish theology).

Philo does not say he is rejecting Zechariah’s interpretation. In fact, he does not attribute the quotation to Zechariah. Instead, Philo attributes the quotation to one of Moses’s companions (14.62). My argument is that Philo relays that one of Moses’s companions declared, “Behold, a man whose name is Rise.” Philo writes, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: ‘Behold, a man whose name is Rise.’” When I write that Philo names the personage anatolê, I mean that this is the name Philo records one of Moses’s companions assigning to the personage and that Philo deems the name appropriate to apply to that figure.

That does not mean Philo “does not care about the context” in which this figure is mentioned; to the contrary, Philo attends to that context everywhere he believes he is mentioned. Philo is simply reinterpreting what that context means.

The key point here is that you maintain Philo is reinterpreting Zechariah’s context.

Or perhaps (as you now have desperately changed your argument)

I have not changed my argument at all. I merely highlighted the inconsistency in your argument that Zechariah was concerned about the context of Zechariah.
By contending that Philo is aware of the context of Zechariah, but still rejects Zechariah’s interpretation, you are conceding that Philo does not really care about all of the details in the context of the quotation after all. If Philo did care about all of the details in the context, then he would not need to reinterpret the context at all. You are effectively saying that Philo picks and chooses which portions of the context to apply to the celestial figure he discusses. Consequently, you are picking and choosing which aspects to believe Philo chose to apply to the figure named anatolê, such as the name “Jesus.” This exposes a contradiction in your reasoning leading to the conclusion that Zechariah would have assumed the figure’s name was “Jesus.” Therefore, the question remains: If Philo picks and chooses which portions to highlight from the context, then why didn’t he choose to mention the name “Jesus”?

First, it is in Zech. 3 that Jesus is standing before God and his angels, including Satan. Zechariah may have imagined this as occurring on earth (unlikely, but possible), but Philo clearly did not. (It is also not a question of whether Zechariah thinks Jesus resides in heaven, but whether he intended him to have visited heaven for this event; Philo is the one who concludes he resides in heaven.)

I asked if you thought Josiah’s house resided in heaven, not whether you thought Joshua resided in heaven. You are also right to note that there is a difference between the context of Zechariah and Philo’s interpretation of the context.

Second, Zech. 6 instructs Zechariah to manufacture the crowns at the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah (6:11). It is unlikely a crowning would occur in the same place as the manufacturing;

Correct. YHWH instructs Zechariah to make the crowns at Josiah’s house. This is an earthly setting. Zechariah 6:14 likewise mentions other humans, not non-human beings. Thus, the context surrounding Zechariah 6:12 suggests an earthly setting, not a heavenly one.

the crowning is described in Zech. 3 as taking place in what appears to be God’s court (in the presence of Satan and God and his angels).

No crowns are mentioned in Zechariah 3. You are reading these into the chapter.

Possibly Zechariah imagined it all as taking place in the same house, but he doesn’t clearly state this; and that’s moot anyway, since Philo clearly did not believe so. Philo sees this as taking place in heaven (because he does not see this as referring to an earthly man).

The location of where Zechariah says Joshua is crowned is not a moot point. I am responding your claim that Zechariah 6 describes Joshua being crowned in heaven. You previously asserted the following concerning Zechariah, not Philo:

and placing him in heaven (where the scene in Zech. 6 occurs)

As you now agree, Zechariah 6 does not necessarily take place in heaven.

Which is Christian apologetical desperation again.

Not really. I am informing you why Zechariah scholars say Joshua is different from the figure named Anatolê. Are you suggesting that Edgar W. Conrad, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Mike Butterworth are Christian apologists?

You now need God to have said exactly the same thing and performed exactly the same act on two different men within the space of three chapters. So again, your argument requires improbabilities. Mine does not. In Zech. 6 God has Jesus crowned and declares his name Anatolê (“Behold, the man whose name is the Rising: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah;…and bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne”).

God does not declare that Joshua’s name is Anatolê in Zechariah 6.
The literary context within Zechariah differentiates Joshua from the man named anatolê. Anatolê is a Greek translation of the Hebrew noun, Zemah, which means “Branch” or “Sprout.” Here is a rough translation of Zechariah 6:11-12 from Hebrew:

“And you will take silver and gold and you will make crowns and you will set on the head of Joshua son of ‘YHWH is just,’ the great priest. And you will say to him (Joshua), saying, ‘Thus said YHWH of Hosts, saying, ‘Behold a man; Branch is his name and from under him he will sprout and he will build the Temple of YHWH.”

God instructs Zechariah to tell Joshua about a man. This man’s name is “Branch” or “Sprout.” The man called “Branch” will sprout and this man will build the temple of YHWH. In other words, Zechariah does not equate Joshua with the man named “Branch” (or Anatolê in Greek). Zechariah does not say to Joshua, “Branch is your name and from under you you will sprout and you will build the Temple of YHWH.” Zechariah speaks to Joshua telling Joshua about another man. Remember that Zechariah specifies it is Zerubbabel who will build the temple (Zech 4:9), not Joshua.

In Zech. 3 God has Jesus crowned and declares his name Anatolê (“behold, I will bring forth my servant the Rising” and “thou shalt judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts”). It makes no sense to think that God would call Jesus Anatolê in one crowning event, and then at another crowning event say that someone else would be called Anatolê.

Several points need to be made here. First, no crowns are mentioned in Zechariah 3. You are reading crowns into Zechariah 3. Second, God does not call Joshua “Anatolê” in Zechariah 3. Rather, the angel of YHWH (3:6) promises Joshua that he will bring his servant “Branch” (3:8).

In Zech. 3 God is speaking to the entire congregation; his meaning is then explained in Zech. 6. In Zech. 3 God is asking Jesus to note the prophecy of the stone (3:10), and asking the congregation to behold the role his servant (Jesus the Anatolê) will play in it (3:9, 3:11).

There is no 3:11 in Zechariah 3. Zechariah 3 ends with 3:10. Also, Zechariah 3 does not identify Joshua as Anatolê.

This has to be the interpretation, otherwise Zechariah contradicts himself within the space of three chapters when speaking of the same crowning of Jesus. And so would any later interpreter like Philo conclude, being unwilling to assume a contradiction so blatant. You require the improbability of Zechariah and Philo both assuming these passages contradict each other and thus don’t describe the same event even though they plainly do.

The interpretation of the Zechariah scholars I explained previously does not result in a contradiction. Specifically, all of those scholars note that Zechariah is speaking to Joshua in Zechariah 6:12 about someone else. Reading Zechariah 6:12 in combination with Zechariah 3:8 and Zechariah 4:9 confirms that Zechariah draws a distinction between Joshua, who is crowned, and another figure who is named Anatolê.

I explained:

These scholars report that theophoric names are sentences. In this case, the word “is” is included in the translation, because “is” forms the complete sentence.
em>

You responded:

You evidently are unaware that this is only true in an irrelevant sense, i.e. “Righteous Johovah” and “Jehovah is Righteous” are the same thing in this sense. em>

This point is actually very relevant. They are not the same thing. “Righteous Jehovah” is a title, but “YHWH is righteous” is a sentence. Remember that the aforementioned scholars explain that theophoric names are sentences, not titles.

You are trying to make the verb into a distinction from assigning an adjective, which requires placing a different meaning on the verb that these scholars are talking about with regard to names. This is a non-argument. It’s still “Jesus the son of Jehovah who is Righteous.” There is no getting around this with semantic trickery.em>

There is no Hebrew element in this theophoric name for “who” in the theophoric name “YHWH is righteous.” Moreover, your insertion of this term changes the name from a sentence to a fragment. This is very problematic, because theophoric names are sentences, not fragments.

Kind regards,

Fpvflyer