Further Problematizing Richard Carrier’s Claims about Jesus

Further Problematizing Richard Carrier’s Claims about Jesus September 16, 2012

Ian has a further detailed explanation of Bayes’ Theorem on his blog. It problematizes Richard Carrier’s use of it in relation to history in general, and the historical Jesus in particular.

I am also grateful to Nick Covington for sharing this video, which shows more of what Richard Carrier thinks about the figure of Jesus than he sometimes explicitly says on his blog or in other places:

The slides are available online. You can see some of the glaring problems even on a cursory viewing. He compares what happened in Roswell to early Christianity, and yet even if we had detailed knowledge of what was found there, he still reverses the trend twice over, having Jesus initially a “demigod” (his term) who is later historicized, even though the historical trajectory seems to be from human being to one who embodies the divine Wisdom/Word/Spirit to treatment as identical to that hypostasis, and the Roswell comparison likewise suggests that a turning of a demigod into a figure that looks like a Jewish rabbi is not a parallel scenario.

He makes what is a clear reference to Doherty’s sublunar firmament viewpoint, and says it is the best mythicist theory. And he says that Philo says that the Logos was named “Jesus” – ignoring the fact that in the relevant passage (On the Confusion of Tongues 62-63), Philo is offering an allusive reference to, and allegorical treatment of, a text in Zechariah which mentioned a historical high priest named Joshua. To see this as an argument in favor of mythicism, you have to ignore the details and just really want Philo to call the Logos “Jesus.”

He treats the “Last Supper” as originating from a hallucination of Paul’s. Note in that section the sleight of hand – he goes from passages that he acknowledges are at best ambiguous, to the Gospels – which assume that one of the possible meanings of Paul’s words is clearly the case, but Carrier then dismisses Mark as resembling a “metaparable” by which he seems to mean something like Barbara Thiering’s wacky approach.

It is apologetics, not scholarship. If this is what he has to offer, as the only professional historian who finds mythicism to have historical merit, then I think I can safely say pretty much what I have been saying all along: anyone who thinks that the historicity of Jesus as a real human messianic claimant is “a theory in crisis” is rather like that infamous other group that uses that phrase.

I can only hope that more people will emerge within the so-called skeptical movement who will treat Carrier’s claims with the same skepticism that they wield so ably against the claims of others.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Erp

    It is a problem that so many people don’t see the problems in Carrier’s ideas. I think I know why other atheists are attracted to them; I might be attracted myself except I have read quite a few historians in the area and looked at the source material (in translation) and do have some training as a historian (only a bachelors though). I heard Carrier speak back in 2006 and it didn’t make sense then. At least Ehrman is dealing with the evidence side and others with the misuse of Bayes Theorem.

  • ignoring the fact that in the relevant passage (On the Confusion of Tongues 62-63), Philo is offering an allusive reference to, and allegorical treatment
    of, a text in Zechariah which mentioned a historical high priest named Joshua.

    ignoring the fact that in the relevant passage Philo is offering an allusive reference to, and allegorical treatment of, a text in Zechariah which mentioned a historical high priest named Jesus — he was reading the Septuagint. http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/38_003.htm But not ignoring the allegorical etc treatment — the view was all clear from the outset. JM really ought to read and try to understand what he is so quick to attack.

    Anyone interested in actually broadening their knowledge of how Bayes Theorem has been used and modified and applied since its inception ought to read Sharon McGrayne’s “The Theory That Would Not Die”. It is the sorts of multiple layered and many-headed causal factors and nuances that are encountered in the real world of human affairs that BT is especially suited to address. But even if you don’t use the maths, no-one can ever justify ignoring the inputs and considerations to be evaluated in any examination of historical evidence that Carrier addresses. Ditching Bayes yet ignoring the full range of factors historians ought to consider still leaves most historicist arguments in the naive and apologetic basket.

    • Ian

      Sharon McGrayne’s “The Theory That Would Not Die”, really?

      You do know how overwhelmingly that book was panned by mathematicians, statisticians and economists, right? For exactly the same reasons I criticised Carrier’s book.

      “multiple layered and many-headed causal factors and nuances” can be dealt with using Bayesian methods, but it is very difficult, and you can’t use the form of Bayes’s Rule given in either Carrier or McGrayne’s books. Neither of them claim, nor give any example, at all of doing Bayesian calculations with multiple causal factors. Nor even the very basic process of updating existing probability values with new information.

      You can use Bayes’s Rule for all sorts of things, but there are a large cadre of amateurs who think, therefore, it can be used for anything. They are enamoured by their discovery of a big hammer, and everything seems like a nail.

  • Ian

    Thanks for the link again James.

    I find Carrier a bit of a chameleon. At times he seems to come across as quite neutral: as if he’s suggesting that, even if a historical Jesus were more likely, our confidence in either theory is fairly low (a position I can just about agree with, though it is a little more pessimistic than I think is warranted). At other times he seems to be deploying a full court press of pseudoscholarship to suggest we can be relatively confident Jesus was mythical. I understand these are my impressions of him (I can’t, off the top of my head, point to specific statements of these claims).
    In my posts I made clear a couple of times that I largely agree with many things he says. But then I watch that video and think “I really don’t want to be associated with that, in the slightest!”

    I wonder if he’s basically reasonable, but gets drawn into dubious areas because of his audience (a temptation I could imagine succumbing too easily enough), or whether he’s basically an apologist who can turn on reasonable sounding rhetoric when he thinks it will aid his credibility. Or whether he’s just nuanced, and I’m just terrible about wanting to shove him into a box.

    • Well, the video presentation seems to me to be lacking in nuance. But that still leaves open many possible scenarios. I heard from a renowned biologist that he had learned that a comparably infamous proponent of Intelligent Design with a large family was basically pursuing that as a way to put his kids through college. We all have to eat, and some people find they have to choose between sensationalizing nonsense and poverty. We associate that in particular with conservative institutions and their statements of faith, but that isn’t the only sort of situation, and it isn’t only on that end of the spectrum.

      All that just to say that there are many reasons people do things, and without insider knowledge, we may make a wrong assumption. I can think of several scenarios that would make sense of the very different signals I get from Richard Carrier’s discussions of a range of topics.

      • Ian

        Thanks James. I’ve heard that rumour from a couple of people about Behe: that his assessments are rather different in private. But they’ve come to me third hand, so while plausible, I’ve not paid them much heed. I certainly know Christian ministers who are frustrated that they can’t preach their progressive understanding of their faith in their more conservative churches. So yes, I think the potential to play to the gallery is probably in all of us.

        • ncovington89

          I’m a little unclear here: is the rumor that Michael Behe does not really believe in ID or that his views are a little fuzzier on the issue in private?

          • Ian

            I’ve heard both. I would reiterate, however, that it came to me a minimum of third hand. And creationists also like to claim biologists are only pretending to believe in evolution, for promotion / money sake. So unless someone has more direct evidence, you’re getting no better than fourth hand hearsay!

        • Mark Erickson

          I don’t think that’s right about Behe, at least not the put the kids through college stuff. His son has come out as an atheist and has discussed his family on reddit and other places. Nothing I’ve read from him suggests Behe is insincere, just the opposite in fact. Plus, he’s making decent money as a professor and unless he’s morally opposed to college loans, his kids should be able to attend any school they get into just fine. Plus his books can’t make that much money and he didnt get paid for testifying at Dover either. On the negative side, he’s been completely ostracized in his department. It all points to true believer for me.

      • arcseconds

        I doubt Carrier’s options are really:

        (a) take a position which is in some ways radical and controversial, but in other ways pandering to a certain crowd,


        (b) starve.

        If we’re to start, somewhat uncharitably, looking for motives other than a pure search for truth (and who is motivated solely by that? few enough, I feel) then a desire to court controversy and enjoyment in be reviled on the one hand and idolized on the other seems not entirely implausible, especially given that we’ve some displays aside from merely being controversial that there might be a wee bit more ego involved than average, and a wee bit less humility.

      • Mark Erickson

        Please share these scenarios with us, rabbi.

  • He compares what happened in Roswell to early Christianity, and yet even if we had detailed knowledge of what was found there, he still reverses the trend twice over, having Jesus initially a “demigod” (his term) who is later historicized, even though the historical trajectory seems to be from human being to one who embodies the divine Wisdom/Word/Spirit to treatment as identical to that hypostasis, and the Roswell comparison likewise suggests that a turning of a demigod into a figure that looks like a Jewish rabbi is not a parallel scenario.

    As I understand the Roswell analogy, it is offered for the limited purpose of demonstrating how quickly a complex narrative can arise without any supporting evidence. As far as I can tell, Carrier is not claiming that it has any direct parallels with the process by which demigods were historicized in the ancient world.

  • Note in that section the sleight of hand – he goes from passages that he acknowledges are at best ambiguous, to the Gospels – which assume that one of the possible meanings of Paul’s words is clearly the case, but Carrier then dismisses Mark as resembling a “metaparable” by which he seems to mean something like Barbara Thiering’s wacky approach.

    Why is it necessary to resort to pejoratives like “sleight of hand”? Carrier isn’t “dismissing” anything. He is proposing a hypothesis which he thinks better explains the writings we have. I don’t know that I find it completely convincing, but I don’t see him doing anything deceptive or misleading.

    • Well, I think that he is doing precisely what I said. He suggests that Paul is at best ambiguous, and then treats the Gospels in a manner that rides roughshod over the fact that they view Jesus in a manner that is essentially the same as one of the possible meanings of what Paul wrote. And so why should Carrier’s treatment not be considered apologetic trickery? It certainly seems to constitute a deliberate attempt to depict the overall impression one should get from the New Testament as at odds with the impression that historians and scholars get, and get because the evidence points more naturally in that direction.

      • Dr. McGrath,

        It shouldn’t be considered apologetic trickery because he is being forthright about the fact that his interpretation is in the extreme minority. He is also forthright about acknowledging that the gospels read as though Jesus was a historical individual who lived in a particular time and place. He is merely suggesting a possible explanation for the gospels reading that way that doesn’t necessitate a historical Jesus. There is no trickery involved.

        I cannot see anything wrong with deliberately attempting to depict the overall impression that one should get from the evidence as different from the impression that most scholars get. If there were, then Mark Goodacre would be guilty of apologetic trickery for trying to convince people that the Q hypothesis is wrong. What would be wrong would be if Carrier misrepresented the evidence or misrepresented the state of scholarship or misrepresented the counter-arguments to his hypothesis. That is what I typically see apologists do. There can’t be anything wrong with arguing against the consensus as long as the evidence and arguments on the consensus side are represented fairly.

        • Dr. McGrath,

          I have argued with lots of conservative Christians in the blogosphere and it is usually pretty easy to tell when someone has relied on the work of apologists rather than scholars. People who have only read apologetics are frequently surprised by facts and evidence. For example, they are surprised to learn how thin the evidence is for the martyrdom of the apostles or for the traditional authorship of the gospels. They are surprised because apologists misrepresent their opponents’ arguments and evidence in order to make them seem as weak as possible and apologists overstate the evidence for their own position.

          A scholar, on the other hand, fairly presents the evidence both for and against his position and seeks to address the strongest counter arguments. A scholar may not always be able to escape his own biases in his conclusions, but he should be able to present the evidence in a way that exposes those biases. I don’t think that Carrier has ever misled me concerning the evidence for or against mythicism and I don’t recall ever being surprised by counter arguments or evidence that he tried to sweep under the rug.

          • Well, the way he put the Philo claim simply astonished me. If you compare the impression he gives with what the evidence is, would you say that he has communicated the actual state of affairs accurately and fairly?

          • I don’t think that I have any misapprehension regarding what Philo wrote. When I went and read the passage for myself, it was about what I expected it to be based on what he said about it. I’m not convinced that it supports the argument for mythicism as much he seems to think it does, but I wouldn’t accuse him of sleight of hand anymore than I would accuse you of sleight of hand simply because you put more weight on “born of a woman” than seems warranted to me.

            I would also note that this is thirty minute lecture giving an overview of the topic, not a peer reviewed publication addressing the issue in detail.

          • But part of what worries me is that Carrier acknowledges in print that mythicism is not a credible option unless it can persuade historians and scholars with relevant competencies, and yet he is presenting it as a viable theory to a general audience even so.

            I don’t want to make too much of this, but the presentation seems to me to be designed to make mythicism seem plausible to an audience of non-experts when it would not seem that way to those familiar with the relevant evidence.

            As for the supposed Philo reference to the Logos as “Jesus” I am really surprised that you expected, based on what Carrier said, to find that Philo does not refer to the Logos as Jesus…

          • Your complaint sounds a lot like the ones that some conservative Christian scholars made about Misquoting Jesus, which was that lay audiences lacked the expertise to evaluate the information that Ehrman.

            As for the Philo reference, my expectations were not formed solely on his statements in this lecture. I have seen him challenged on this point elsewhere and I thought his justification for characterizing the passage in the way that he did seemed seemed well within the realm of reasonable argumentation. I might agree with Nick Covington that he has over simplified the issue in this talk but I can’t comment much beyond that.

          • michael macrossan

            Except for the claim of the name Jesus, I think Carrier represented the evidence well. Can you say you knew all about this passage in Philo and had never noticed the similarity of Philo’s “incorporeal one”, to Paul’s Jesus? Philo wrote of

            “[the] Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree that the name of “rising” assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied.”

            You read this and were not surprised by it? And not surprised that Philo seems to think his readers will know of whom he speaks, as though it was common knowledge that such an Incorporeal one, with all those attributes, existed?

          • No one familiar with Philo would be surprised by this. This is not the only passage where he articulates his view of the Logos. If mythicists wanted to argue that Philo’s ideas lead to the story of Jesus, surely it would make sense for them to try to argue that the Gospel of John is earlier than the Gospels which have no view of Jesus as incarnating a pre-existent divine entity.

          • michael macrossan

            I assume everyone has got used to the idea that Philo’s Logos is not something to worry about, but I wasn’t sure why.

            I don’t think the question is which Gospel has Jesus as incarnating a pre-existing demiurge, but whether Paul thinks Jesus is an incarnating demiurge (and Philippians seems to answer that question in the affirmative).

            The interesting thing about this passage, I would say, is that here Philo calls the pre-existing entity “Rising” because God “raised” this entity in some sense. Is it common knowledge that the Logos was raised in some sense, and is it known why Philo thinks the Logos was “raised”.

          • I don’t see those ideas in Paul. Jesus may or may not be viewed as the pre-existent Messiah in Philippians 2. But however Paul viewed him, it was clearly as a figure who is exalted to a status at the end of the passage he did not have at the beginning. That is a marked difference from John.

          • michael macrossan

            But being “exalted to a status” does seem to fit Philo’s entity “Rising”, who God raised in some sense.

            The idea that it doesn’t matter how Paul viewed Jesus, is odd to say the least; if you advance the lateness of John as very important, surely the earliness of Paul is even more important.

          • Did someone suggest that what Paul thought is unimportant? Setting aside a contested issue does not mean it is unimportant.

            If all you need to become persuaded that a deep connection between two authors is a word that might be applicable to both, then there will probably be no limit to the connections you can draw.

          • michael macrossan

            Yes, I agree one needs more than one similarity. That is why it might be important that there is more than one similarity between Philo’s “Mr Rising” and Paul’s Jesus:
            1) both were exalted or “raised” by God
            2) both were the first born son of God
            3) both had some role in creation or sustaining creation
            4) both were the image of God

          • Philo discusses allegorical meanings of a great many words. It isn’t clear to me that he envisages the Logos undergoing an exaltation of the sort that Paul envisages for Jesus. But to the extent that early Christians began to regard Jesus as having been exalted to a status second only to God, is there any surprise that we find points of overlap and intersection with Philo’s Logos, the son of man of the Similitudes, Yahoel, and so on, even as they regularly overlap and intersect with one another?

          • michael macrossan

            So, we agree one point of similarity with Paul is not surprising, and now you imply four points is not surprising. What number of points of similarity (with Paul) would be surprising?

          • One does not seem to me to be a similarity, one uses terminology that could apply to kings, angels, and righteous men (among others), one seems more likely to reflect Paul’s Adam Christology, and one may reflect the Wisdom language that we find applied to the Torah by Ben Sira and Baruch. I certainly think that Paul and Philo are drawing on deep wells of Jewish tradition familiar to both. What I would want in order to conclude that Paul knew Philo is something that is distinctive of Philo and not explicable equally well or better in terms of their shared context and heritage.

          • michael macrossan

            I am not sure what you mean by mentioning Kings and righteous men, along with angels.

            Do you think Philo does NOT believe there really exists an incorporeal being (an angel say) who is the Son of God, who is the Image of God, who was an agent of creation and who was raised by God in some sense?

          • My point is that I would not posit direct dependence on Philo for ideas and terminology that are part of the common heritage of Jews in this period. To show dependence on Philo, one needs to show that there are specific points of contact with things unique to him.

          • michael macrossan

            But isn’t that Carrier’s point here – that a heavenly being, first-born son of God, image of God, who took some part in the creation, was elevated by God in some sense, was a reasonably well-known idea (or even part of the common heritage of Jews) before Paul.

            That this was something Christians could modify into a personal saviour God (which Carrier claims were all the rage at the time). The Christians didn’t have to make up something entirely non-Jewish out of whole cloth.

          • And if the evidence pointed to Jesus having initially been a savior God, there might perhaps be some plausibility to Carrier’s claim. But what we find is an assertion that Jesus, the Davidic anointed one, a human being with a human name, was exalted to the status of supreme mediator. Carrier’s attempts to reinterpret all counterevidence to his view by shifting it to the celestial realm is simply not plausible, never mind probable.

          • michael macrossan

            “with a human name”

            Is having a human name relevant to the human or non-human status of an alleged angel? Are the names of the archangels Michael and Gabriel also human names (to Greek speakers and writers)?

            And anyway, unless you are denying that Christ Jesus, according to Paul, existed before his incarnation and had the name “Christ Jesus” before his incarnation, it would seem that Paul is capable of calling a non-human by the human name “Jesus” and human title “Christ’.

          • I am not entirely certain whether Paul thought of Jesus as pre-existent. Is it safe to assume that you are familiar with Dunn’s arguments in Christology in the Making? But if he did, he thought of him as the pre-existent Messiah, akin to what we find in the Parables of Enoch.

            I cannot think of any instance of a human being given an angelic name, or an angel being given a human name, in this period.

          • michael macrossan

            No I am not familiar with Dunn’s arguments. Can I assume that “not entirely certain” means “quite likely, at least”, so that it is quite likely that Paul thought of the pre-existent Messiah as having a human name “Jesus”.

            But I suppose Paul may have thought that the pre-existent Messiah did not have the name Jesus until his human parents gave it to him.

          • I mean that I have gone back and forth on this, since Paul in places does not seem to think that Jesus pre-existed in any literal sense, and this seems an area in which the majority view might well reflect the impact of the way Christians have historically interpreted Philippians 2:6-8. I see no evidence that Paul thought that the Messiah was known as Jesus prior to being born. He clearly doesn’t think Jesus was virginally conceived, since he regards him as of the seed of David according to the flesh.

          • michael macrossan

            “I cannot think of any instance of a human being given an angelic name, or an angel being given a human name, in this period.”

            Can you clarify? If I do a search on the name Michael thru the bible I get quite a few human Michaels in the OT, which suggest to me Michael is an ancient human name.

            Jude then specifically refers to the archangel Michael, so it would seem that a Christian “in this period”? can give a human name to a heavenly being.

            Am I being naive? What do you mean by “in this period”?

          • I was referring to the period of second temple Judaism, the era relevant to the emergence of Christianity.

            You are quite right that Michael begins as a human name and then becomes an angelic one. It seems to be the only such instance. I wonder whether any studies have been done that might explain the historical development that led to that. But you are mistaken in that Jude does not give a human name to an angel. It was the Book of Daniel which did that, prior to the rise of Christianity, and I am not sure that we have any examples of the ongoing use of the name Michael as a human name in the same period of history. Michael then gets included among the saints in the later church and becomes a popular name for humans again as a result. If no one has yet done a study of the history of the name, and its relationship to ancient Jewish angelology, someone should!

            But my point was that, by the time of Jesus, angelic names tend to be distinct from human ones, and to have -el as the theophoric element (with Yahoel having both kinds, since that angel is said to have the divine name in him). It would be surprising in the second temple period to find a very common human name in current use like Joshua turned into an angelic figure, other than if a specific human with that name came to be thought of as also having some sort of angelic existence. If the process had gone the other way, I would expect the figure to have the sort of name that angels were believed to have in this era in history.

          • carmel Ka

            Hello Mr James F McGraph,
            I followed your line of reasoning and I think Carrier also did by posting a reply to your arguments/rebuttal at:
            it looks for me that he main complain come lastly like:
            “”Where exactly did that occur? Paul never says.””
            well, at least from the greek text is seems prety obvious for me that Jesus comes from God to earth incarnated for a divine goal to follow…
            but I will like to see your reply please

          • This post is from three years ago. You didn’t even manage to spell my name correctly, never mind express your thought clearly. I am happy to return to this topic, but you really will need to ask a clear question.

          • carmel Ka

            Hello Mr James,
            I was interested in your argument for a terrestrial Jesus regarding Carrier question addressed to you at his blog:
            concluding that(from the above dissertation)
            “Jesus was an eternal celestial archangel. Who descended to the lower
            reaches of outer space where flesh and death resided, and put on a
            mortal human body like an overcoat, so that he could be killed and
            Where exactly did that occur? Paul never says.”
            that is the question that mith advocates keep arguing which assum that all Paul ministry might happen in a celestial environment.
            Hope I make the Carrier question clear then and thanks for reply.

          • Thanks! Mythicists often emphasize that Paul never explicitly says that Jesus was crucified on Earth, outside Jerusalem. My point is that he never says Jesus was crucified in the sky, upon the firmament either. In general, when Paul or other authors are referring to celestial, non-mundane regions or entities, they feel the need to make this clear, in a way that simply isn’t necessary when one is referring to the terrestrial and everyday. When we meet someone, we just say that. If we meet someone in a dream or a vision, then we need to specify that.

            Another problem is that mythicists are willing to place lots of things in the celestial realm, sometimes in a way that fits awkwardly with what the texts say. Except for in the Ascension of Isaiah, the realm beneath the moon essentially means the Earthly realm. Since there are references to a celestial Jerusalem, one might perhaps even grant that, had Paul said that Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem, it would still not be entirely unambiguous. But when he says that Jesus was born of a woman like all humans are, born under the Law like all Jews are, and of the seed of David according to the flesh, it is only by strenuous effort that one can relocate those things into the celestial realm – and even then, Paul never says explicitly that that is where they occur, and so it seems that, however much Carrier might play with numbers, it simply will never be more likely that Paul meant what Carrier suggests, than that he meant what mainstream historical scholarship understands him to.

          • Cecil Bagpuss

            I’m not sure what your point is. It is true that a variety of already-existing concepts were applied to Jesus – messiah, son of God, Logos – but what is that supposed to imply? The only concept which it might be strange to apply to a man is the Logos, but we know for certain that the author of John’s Gospel did apply it to a man rather than a purely celestial being; so there is nothing here to support Carrier’s theory.

            We still need to explain why all these concepts were gathered together, but this can be done within a historicist framework. As Bart Ehrman explains in his recent book, these concepts were applied to Jesus once his followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead.

            Mythicists believe that Jesus was invented by bringing all these ideas together, but they can’t explain why anyone would choose to do that.

          • Kris Rhodes

            Who has argued that Paul knew Philo? Carrier doesn’t argue this, to my recollection. (Rather, he argues that the complex of ideas we find in Philos make it less surprising than we may have thought if Paul had a similar complex of ideas.)

            I’m not even sure Michael here is arguing that Paul knew Philo, though I’m not sure since he hasn’t responded to that particular point

  • ncovington89

    Hi James,
    My name is *Covington* btw, but the misspelling is no big deal.
    Also, I just want to state for the record that I posted Carrier’s talk b/c I think it is interesting, I still believe an historical Jesus is the best explanation of the facts.
    “Philo is offering an allusive reference to, and allegorical treatment of, a text in Zechariah which mentioned a historical high priest named Joshua. To see this as an argument in favor of mythicism, you have to ignore the details and just really want Philo to call the Logos ‘Jesus.'”
    Here’s the relevant passage from Philo:
    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!”{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.
    I’ve read Zechariah 6:12, and I’m a little confused because the passage itself doesn’t say anything about a man who’s name is the East. It does speak of a man whose name is “The Branch.” Here Philo says that this passage is supposed to apply to the Logos (the “divine image”). So, the original passage applies it to the ancient priest Jesus (Joshua is a form of ‘Jesus’) but Philo interprets it as applying to the Logos (which the Christians took to be Jesus). The parallels are stunning: The old Jesus is supposed to build the temple (Remember that the new Jesus said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it). The old Jesus is called The Branch, and in the new testament the new Jesus refers to himself as such (see John 15, for example). The old Jesus was a high priest. The new Jesus was/is too (see Hebrews). Carrier oversimplified by saying that Philo calls the Logos Jesus, but I think the facts do point to a connection between the two.

    • GakuseiDon

      Hi Nick,

      I’m afraid that Carrier here is doing what bad apologists do to “prove” that the Old Testament prophecized the Jesus of the Gospels. In fact, the argument that Carrier uses IS an apologetic one used on at least one Christian apologetics website.

      The problem here is timing. Philo quote-mines the OT looking for something to describe what Moses apparently wrote (at least from Philo’s perceptive). He sees Zech 6:12, which is something the Lord said about a high priest called Jesus in Zech 6:11. The problem is, Moses lived long before the time portrayed in Zech! So how would Moses know? The solution: instead of having the Lord say it, Philo attributes it to “one of the companions of Moses”.

      To my mind, Philo is treating “Behold, a man whose name is the East!” as an expression that was used from the time of Moses. I don’t think Philo has the Jesus high priest in mind at all when he wrote “On the confusion of tongues”; he just wanted to quote-mine the Bible wherever it mentioned “East”. It was only that the name “Jesus” became central to Christianity that bad apologists (Christian and mythicist) started thinking that Philo’s companion of Moses must have somehow known what was written at the time of Zech.

      • michael macrossan

        If you think this is about Philo misinterpreting the OT, you are way off track. The issue is that Philo thinks the name “rising” is a good name for the “Incorporeal one” (a man without body and soul), who is the image of the God, who is the first born or begotten son of God, who God “raised” in some sense, and who had some part in creation.

        And, even more to the point, Philo assumes his readers know of whom he speaks – as though the existence of this Incorporeal One was common knowledge. It is NOT a big step for Cephas, James, John and Paul to take that “common knowledge”, do some more mining of the OT, and produce their Jesus, is it?

        Or if you like, Cephas et al could decide that Jesus the Itinerant preacher was in fact that same incorporeal one, come to Earth. That would make Philo a wise, but not fully informed, Christian prophet.

    • Sorry – apparently there was some inadvertent cross-pollination from Carrier’s name as I wrote the post late at night. I’ve fixed the point.

      I do not dispute that there is a connection, ultimately – but unless one acknowledges that we are dealing with Philo allegorically dealing with a passage involving someone with the not-uncommon name Joshua, who is connected with the Logos; and then we have another Joshua, from Nazareth, about whom various people write, and eventually the author of the Gospel of John identifies him as the embodiment of that same Logos decades after the fact, then what Carrier is offering is a tangential connection that he is depicting as though it were a substantial one. I doubt that most people who heard his talk would have understood the actual relationship based on what Carrier said, and so I think that most likely constitutes the deliberate giving of a false impression.

  • GakuseiDon

    Carrier describes “Euhemerization” as “taking a celestial deity, putting them on earth and giving them an earthly story” (about 5 min 30 secs in). But that is not a good definition for that process. “Euhemerization” is taking a story of a god (often already in history) and “de-mythologizing” it, i.e. to claim that the story was really originally about a king or queen, but that over time legends became attached and traditions of respect about a person became traditions of worship of a god. If anything, it was a reaction to the idea that people were taking a person and making them a celestial deity.

    Carrier’s point on Romulus is something I’ve never heard before. Romulus was a celestial being and ancient people decided to put him on earth in history so put him at the time Rome was founded? Has anyone heard anything like that proposed before? Is there any evidence for this?

    To me, Carrier phrases both examples in such a way as to bring parallels to the Jesus story to mind. This does seem to be along the lines of bad apologetics. But maybe he expands on this in his next book.

  • Rambo123UK

    Clearly you need to look up the etymology of Yeshua/Joshua and “Jesus”. Identifying a “Joshua” as a “Jesus”, in particular when translating into Greek, is perfectly correct.

    • I think you misunderstood the point, which was not about these being two individuals named Joshua, but about how Carrier was misrepresenting what Philo was talking about in that passage.

  • MattB

    It’s also interesting to note that Carrier makes this same kind of argument(more or less) in another lecture just this past year. The amount of glaring problems are overwhelming. I really don’t see how people can fall for this nonsense.

  • micromacro

    Carrier’s claim that Philo thinks his celestial being is named “Jesus” is a stretch and it is very silly of Carrier to say that. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that Philo does seem to believe there is a celestial being, who is God’s first born son and is the image of God, and had some hand in the creation and was “raised” by God (possibly raised merely in the sense of raised in status, for some reason). And also Philo seems to think his readers know of whom he speaks, that this was not something Philo just made up. And all that is a remarkably close to Paul’s Jesus, wouldn’t you say?

    Just look again at what Philo wrote in the Confusion of Tongues 62-63. (English Translation from Loeb’s Classical Library):

    … “Behold a man whose name is the rising” (Zech. vi. 12), strangest of titles, surely, if you suppose that a being composed of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree that the name of “rising” assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied.