His argument is quite specious. Josephus says point blank:

These sects are three: the first is that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; … So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them.

Josephus never says he left that sect. And he is consistently kind to it across his histories, reserving his ire for Sadducees (as would typify a Pharisee; Josephus despised the Sadducees even though they were known as predominating in the priesthood Josephus was in) and hardly ever mentioning Essenes. And he says these were the only sects. Which is false. But it means he wants you to understand those were the only ones he considered for himself. So there is no more logical conclusion than that he means to tell you he opted for the Pharisees and preferred them to the Sadducees and Essenes (and disregarded any others as unworthy even of mention). That doesn’t preclude him sometimes criticizing his preferred sect. But I don’t see any credible way to get him to unsay what he said. You can’t call the sky green and convince me it’s not blue.

Mason’s argument from the Greek is also dubious. It ignores context (“I might choose the best” ending in choosing one is clear as to what Josephus means happened) and even lexical reality (κατακολουθῶν in connection with a school or sect always means become an adherent everywhere else in the entirety of ancient Greek literature: “follow a historical or philosophical authority” and “emulate, imitate” are the most contextually pertinent definitions in the LSJ). Mason’s argument requires Josephus to have explained that he meant something else, that he did not make a choice as he said he would, and that his “following” the Pharisees was begrudging (when his sentence sooner entails it was fawning). In fact Mason’s theory implies an elaborate political position that, if it were his intent to convey it, Josephus would have said it. That he didn’t is fairly conclusive evidence against Mason. All the other evidence against him is just nuking the site from orbit at that point.

You’ve mentioned Josephus’ Pharisaic credentials before but you might want to check out Steve Mason’s Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (1991). He persuasively argued the only basis for that view was a loose translation of one passage in his autobiography. Otherwise there is strong evidence that Josephus was Aristocratic and had a dim view of the Pharisees being aligned with unwashed masses, watering down the harshness of the Mosaic law.

Because of course, just like “suspension executions” and a handful of other conveniently specific things, anointings for some reason “can’t” happen in outer space, I guess.

Moreover, cosmic anointing does not even have to be a physical event. Kipp knows that “anointed” can just be a figurative reference to election; it does not require actual oil touching a head or something. “I anoint you for this role” simply can mean “I choose you for this role.” So God choosing Melchizedek to be the agent of celestial vengeance in the Dead Sea Scrolls is an anointing of him for the purpose. It does not require God to have first put some space oil on Melchizedek’s head, as if God were limited by material ingredients in effecting his magic.

Of course there was space oil (explicit references to fruit, trees, and processed commodities in space abound in Jewish literature—and you list examples even of actual oil). So God could indeed have done that. But the larger point is that he doesn’t have to. The word “anointed” does not require so literal a reading. And you can bet every honest expert will tell you that.

I should also note that while you have aptly honed in on Kipp’s derangement trigger here (he is so terrified of mythicism turning out to be true he has to spread a campaign of lies and slander to make it go away: as I have documented extensively), my article has nothing to do with that. Nor did the element in my original study that it proves. The elements in chapters four and five of Historicity (where all this began) are all, as there explained, true regardless of historicity—none of them make historicity less likely or mythicism more likely, they are all equally expected on either theory.

So for Kipp to make this “about” cosmic messiahs replacing earthly ones is him projecting his terrors and fears onto an innocuous fact: that nearly all experts who have looked at this agree Christianity already had ideas of dying messiahs to work with. I even show how that can explain a historical Jesus (see my Rapture Day talk; there’s also a MythVision video on this somewhere).

And cosmic messiahs also don’t threaten historicity. Qumran has one: Melchizedek flies down from outer space with an army of extraterrestrials to ravage human enemies, just as Jesus promises to do in the Gospels. That does not entail there wasn’t an earthly historical messiah as well (the one who dies in 11Q13 as it claims predicted by Daniel 9, for example, could well have been imagined, for them, to be an ordinary historical human).

Hebrews 1:9 arguably speaks of Jesus’s anointing occurring in heaven upon his exaltation (see Craig Koester, Anchor Bible Commentary on Hebrews, 195). Several experts on Hebrews concur…

Good point. And that’s what you have to keep doing. Cite long lists (as long as you can muster) of experts disagreeing with Kipp and agreeing with me. The more people do that the less people will believe his lies.

Are there other texts that suggest an anointing in heaven that I’m forgetting?

Possibly. Since it isn’t necessary to have a literal oil involved or a text mentioning it, I haven’t exhausted time trying to find every possible mention. But I welcome anyone else gathering as many as they can find and posting them here, for example. I can make use of long lists of examples in future, even though I don’t want to give respect that is not due to an argument that anointings “must” be physically literal or that they “must” be already mentioned somewhere to have been readily imagined anywhere.

For an example, I did try to find cosmic crucifixions, but missed one: Ixion; and readers sent me the reference and I was able to run it down and use it in my following study (see the index to Paradigm). So this is always useful. Even though it is never logically necessary. It is only needed to shut down people committed to being illogical.

I was finally able to read your article. Good stuff, handy to have the bibliography in one place. One incidental thought that occurred, on page 5, you write, “This means: persons “anointed” in any sense then understood (literally, figuratively, cosmically, or symbolically)”. 

I remember watching Kipp Davis review or complain about your work a year or so ago, and he was irritated by the idea of your suggesting a “cosmic anointing”. Because of course, just like “suspension executions” and a handful of other conveniently specific things, anointings for some reason “can’t” happen in outer space, I guess. 

Or, put charitably, he thinks we possess no ancient second temple text saying that an anointing has taken place in outer space (and of course, no Jew would ever imagine such a thing!). 

I’m guessing you’ve included it to be as broad as possible in your definition and also, since it’s one of the hypotheses you’re testing, you sort of have to include it. But he didn’t seem to grasp either of these things.

Further:

Hebrews 1:9 arguably speaks of Jesus’s anointing occurring in heaven upon his exaltation (see Craig Koester, Anchor Bible Commentary on Hebrews, 195). 

Several experts on Hebrews concur. 

Mitchell, Sacra Pagina, 49, “here the ‘oil of gladness’ is a reward for the son” [reward at resurrection/exaltation– the earliest believers likely thought they were one in the same event]

Cockerill, New International Commentary, 110-111, 1.9’s anointing is a “clear reference to exaltation” 

Attridge, Hermenaia, 60: on anointing, “the tradition and the author both thought no doubt of the exaltation” Koester, Anchor Bible, 109, “some passages suggest that Jesus became high priest through his exaltation”, and again 195, “the Son is anointed upon his exaltation to heaven” 

For all I know Davis is right and the Hebrews author is talking about some earthly anointing ceremony lol. But it was funny that he acted like this was some wild, hair-brained idea you had conjured up, when “cosmic anointing” is something major experts on Hebrews have suggested for decades.

M David Litwa in his Found Christianities, says Jesus was anointed in Heaven in the Secret Book of John and the Nature of the Rulers, but haven’t dug into those, but obviously not as early or relevant as Hebrews.

Have I missed something on this front? Or does that basically cover it? Are there other texts that suggest an anointing in heaven that I’m forgetting?

It’s already significant that he acknowledged that Isaiah 53 is clearly alluded to in 4Q541.

I think he acknowledged it somewhat reluctantly, since most scholars who have written about this text have recognized the allusion.

He didn’t really have much choice.

I wonder whether his position has changed since 2000. The idea of a suffering Messiah in pre-Christian Judaism has become much more firmly established since then, especially thanks to Martin Hengel’s study, which is still an important reference today.

Thank you. I love super helpful bibliographic comments like that!

Though this reveals that Collins is not here backtracking after all. He is insisting there is no suffering figure in the scrolls, the very dogma proponents extensively refute. He seems here to be just leaning on his other work and assuming he successfully rebutted what in fact he never addressed, and thus just hat tipping the existence of opposition rather than taking a more positive stance on it. Which is typical behavior in this field I am finding out.

Collins’s article dates to 2000 (five years after he wrote his excursus on the suffering servant in The Scepter and the Star).

It was published in a French journal, which may explain why it has somewhat flown under the radar.

The exact reference is:

John J. Collins, “Teacher and Servant,” in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 80th year, no. 1, January–March 2000. Hommage à Marc Philonenko.

Here is the relevant quotation concerning 4Q541:

“There are however some other points that still lead scholars to assume a relationship with Isaiah 53. Chief of these is the word מכאבין, afflictions, which occurs twice in fragment 6 and once in fragment 2. This appears to be a Hebraism. The same word is used in Isa 53:3-4 (איש מכאבות, a man of sorrows, and מכאבינו סבלם, he has borne our afflictions). This term is unusual enough to give some credibility to the opinion that the author had Isaiah 53 in view. The text is too fragmentary, however, to allow a confident conclusion as to how the prophetic text was interpreted. If the figure who makes atonement in fragment 9 is cast in the role of the Servant, as is possible but by no means certain, then the Isaianic passage is read to refer to a priest, who makes atonement not by his sufferings but by fulfilling his priestly functions and enlightening people with his instruction.
Again here there is similarity to the career of the Teacher, who also complains of opposition. The more likely referent, however, is the messiah of Aaron, who is also said to atone for the sin of the people in CD 14:19.”

>>The folks who erroneously believed a certain YouTube guy with a goatee and a tuque

Not only has he continued misrepresenting your arguments and evidence after being corrected several times, but also he seems not to be able to do discuss anything you do like a grown adult. I really lost respect for him after this, I occasionally listened to him online.

I think the sensible historicist model needs at least some Jews to be ok with a dying messiah, otherwise you would never get Christianity at all. I don’t think one random zealot Who got crucified would be accepted by anyone as a messiah unless his core followers already had that belief.

Those are all around the same time, but yes. It’s fair to give Puech first credit. Hengel even cites him.

And wow, yes, I checked both editions and knew about how Collins approached that thee. But I was unaware of his different take in 2000. Can you give the full citation? I’d love to check into it and readers here can add it to my bibliography.