Well, firstly I do not think you are offering any substantive disagreement with what I have said about Carrier's analysis of Zechariah, which he is tying together with his interpretations from Philo, as well as from Isaiah, and Daniel.
Except perhaps you say that he is wrong to describe this figure as a "pre-existent celestial being". I would have to look into exactly why or how he feels justified in using that description. But that's really a separate issue.
No it isn't a separate issue. Carrier uses that reading to support his overall argument. Now, I'll grant he might be wrong on that point and still be correct overall. But that isn't how these things usually go.
Let me make it clear: Carrier is 100% wrong if he describes the Jesus figure in Zech 6 as a "pre-existent celestial being." You can check this for yourself in less than a couple of minutes if you have access to an on-line Bible. I recommend
Blue Letter Bible. It allows you to search over 20 different versions of the Bible. I've checked a few of the main ones, and they all show that Carrier is wrong on Zech 6. No-one, not even Carrier, has ever suggested that there is a varient reading that doesn't have the Jesus figure as a man.
The point that Carrier is making, and the only point I was making, is that he has written a book which has passed what counts in this subject as "peer review", by which afaik that is supposed to mean the book has been checked extensively by independent experts in the field prior to publication, such that anything which the expert review panel disagree with, must either be omitted entirely from the book or else altered to make it acceptable to the reviewers ... at least that is what "peer review" means in the case of scientific research papers, i.e. the reviewers and the Journals editor will not publish the paper unless you omit anything which they as experts cannot agree to as being correct or at least reasonably plausible.
No-one is making that point here. You've picked that up out of nowhere. It is irrelevant. Carrier is still wrong if he describes the Jesus figure in Zech 6 as a "pre-existent celestial being". Check it for yourself! The Jesus figure in Zech 6 is a man, a high priest of the Temple.
But when you say Zechariah does not say what Carrier says that it said, that appears to be a difference of opinion between yourself and Carrier, but where Carrier can support his analysis by pointing to the fact that his analysis has passed a "peer review" process in this subject ... whereas as far as I know, you are relying upon reading such things as Wikipedia for what you think were the actual words used in the particular copies of Zechariah that are in question here (these are Septuagint translations, afaik).
Okay. Let me rephrase then: As far as I know, in every version of every edition of the Old Testament, whether Septuagint or otherwise, the Jesus figure in Zech 6 is not a pre-existent celestial being, he is a man, a high priest of the Second Temple. But no-one, not even Carrier, has ever suggested that there is a variant reading that doesn't have the Jesus figure as a man.
All I am pointing out is that in this particular argument (you are really arguing with Carrier, not with me), that Carrier's book is to be preferred to a source like Wikipedia, simply because Carrier's analysis is endorsed by peer review.
Even if Carrier's book is endorsed by peer review, he is still wrong if he describes the Jesus figure in Zech 6 is a pre-existent celestial being. The Jesus in Zech 6 is a man, a high priest of the Second Temple. You can check it for yourself in under two minutes.
I guess you are right, that I'm not arguing with you, since you seem to be deflecting everything back to Carrier and his peer-review panel. But you should be the one arguing with Carrier. Or at least investigate what he proposes. And you can do that right now! In under two minutes! At least check ONE version of the Bible on the
Blue Letter Bible website and tell me that Carrier is wrong, according to that version. What harm would that do? Just check one version, IanS. I'll let you choose the version!
As to what was actually written in the particular copies of Zechariah that Carrier was referring to, and what the correct translations of the individual words are, neither you or I can possibly know. Because I am not, and afaik you are not, in a position to have read the actual text and personally translated it or had it translated by an independent reliable expert.
Well, maybe there is some edition of the Old Testament out there that contains a version of Zechariah that supports Carrier. Who knows?
As I've said, I'm not trying to convince you, but to show others how vacuous mythicist arguments can be. So sure! Maybe Carrier has a secret version of Zech that he is going by. All I know is that the versions of the different bibles on the
Blue Letter Bible website show the Jesus in Zech 6 to be a man, a high priest of the Second Temple. You can check it for yourself on the Blue Letter Bible website. Why not spend two minutes and check one version for yourself! What harm can that do? It would at least have narrowed down the possible versions that Carrier may have used.
And to go back to an original point that you made - I think you were wrong to suggest with your own link (i.e. you brought it up) that Doherty disagreed with what Carrier has written and said re. that passage in Zechariah. At most, what Doherty is saying is that Carrier may be on shaky ground with certain assumptions about what the words in Zechariah actually meant, or what they were being taken to mean when read in conjunction with other texts (such as Isaiah and Daniel) by earlier religious writers like Philo.
Doherty there is addressing Carrier's overall point, about the link between Philo and Zech 6. Carrier basically acknowledges that the Zech 6 Jesus figure is a man, but then hypothesizes that an "esoteric" reading could be made that the Jesus was a pre-celestial figure. Doherty is right: it might be possible, but it is a stretch.
Let's put it this way: if a 'historicist' had proposed an "esoteric" reading -- against a plain reading otherwise -- in order to support a HJ, you would tear it apart. You'd call it apologetic rubbish, and rightly so. And if that historicist said "but I wrote it in a book that was peer-reviewed", you would see that response for the nonsense it is.
But I'm not righting to convince you, but to show the vacuousness of some mythicist arguments.
Carrier explains his reasoning for his "esoteric" readings in OHJ in the following sections: Element 6 (pages 81-83) and Element 40 (pages 200-205). They are a nightmare read. It takes a strongman's will to try to follow the bucking horse of his train of thought, full as it is of "maybe this" and "possibly that". Here's a challenge for you, IanS: try to summarize his argument, using any facts presented and ignoring his speculation. Keep any alcohol out of arm's reach while you try to do it. Carrier is an extremely poor communicator of complex ideas.
