Talk:Second-god (Christ)

Worthless article
This may be the worst article on RationalWiki. Name one reputable scholar (who isn't Carrier) who has come to the same conclusion about Philo and Zechariah without just piggybacking off of Carrier. Friedman (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed rating to significantly problematic as a result. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't foresee much being done on this article. The only reason Philo's idea of a "Second-god" is supposedly notable enough to merit an article is because of its use to support the idea of a non-historical Jesus by mythicists. Any improvements will simply result in an article covering an obscure topic that's only talked about among Biblical scholars. Friedman (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Carrier's use of Philo
I'll be looking into other claims brought up in the article later, but I've looked through some sources to get a grip on the Philo issue, and this seems to be what I found. Forgive the length, but I felt it was necessary.

The problem is that, among scholars, Carrier's view (based on his interpretation of both Philo of Alexandria and the Book of Zechariah) is really only held by Carrier himself.

A little background: the consensus view (that virtually all scholars agree with) is that there was Jewish man named Yeshua, who was baptized, became a preacher, and was later crucified by Roman leaders. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the Romans are the two events that virtually all scholars agree on. They are so solidly proven that Biblical scholars see them as sort of a starting point for Biblical studies.

I bring this all up, so I can contrast Carrier's viewpoint. Carrier posits that Jesus was never a historical being, only ever a mythic character. He believes that early Jews and Christians knew this, but over time, things got twisted, mixed up, whatever, and they eventually believed he was a real person. This is an extremely fringe viewpoint. That all needs to be said to understand Carrier's reading of Philo, and therefore, this article.

Philo wrote a somewhat contemporaneous book called "de Confusione Linguarum" ("On the Confusion of Tongues"). There's a passage in it which goes like this:

Most scholars, including Carrier, take Philo's quote "Behold, a man whose name is East!" to be a reference to Zechariah 6:11-12 in which God is speaking directly to Zechariah, saying (using King James' Version, as version changes don't alter the argument in any fundamental way):

To make the connection between the two, you need to know that the word for "branch" (also "sprout", as it is in some translations) in Biblical Hebrew (the language of Zechariah) is the same as the word for "east" in Ancient Greek (the language of Philo).

Now, we finally get to understand what Carrier is saying when he claims that this passage supports what he calls a "celestial Jesus". He claims that the Zechariah passage establishes that a man named Joshua would be seen as God's "first-born" son (thus, second-God), as well as a king of the Jews. He believes that Philo's interpretation of Zechariah solidifies this interpretation into the historical record, that even before the alleged historical birth of Jesus around AD 0, early Jews considered Jesus to be a mythical, angelic being rather than a flesh-and-blood one.

This argument (which makes up much of the foundation of Carrier's "celestial Jesus" theory) depends on three things though:
 * 1) Carrier must be reading Zechariah right.
 * 2) Carrier must be reading Philo right.
 * 3) Philo's view must have been the common interpretation at the time.

Let's look at these one at a time.

1) Carrier's reading of Zechariah.

It's pretty clear that Carrier grossly misread the relevant passage in Zechariah. Looking at more of the surrounding passage shows this:

Just from the text, it's clear that Joshua and "The Branch" are two different people. But digging further makes a greater case. The Joshua mentioned in the passage is clearly not meant to be Jesus, nor an angel. He is a man: Joshua, son of Jozadak. Joshua, son of Jozadak, was a High Priest of Israel, and appears elsewhere in the Bible, always introduced as "Joshua, son of Jozadak." Joshua was, in fact, a very common name at the time, being one of the top six names for Jewish males. There are at least three other men named Joshua in the Bible (in 1 Samuel 6:14, 2 Kings 23:8, and Luke 3:29), and that's not including the Joshua who served as Moses' assistant and, later, successor, for whom the Old Testament Book of Joshua is named. Why, if Jesus was thought to be an angel, would he get such a common name? Further speaking of names, Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus, etc. doesn't match with the names of other angels from this period, which generally end in 'el' (meaning "of God"). Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, etc.

2) Carrier's reading of Philo.

It should be noted that scholars aren't unanimous in their interpretation of Philo's passage. That being said, Carrier is the only one who holds his viewpoint; other scholars find it absurd.

Like Zechariah, it's worth looking at a wider section of Philo as well:

Some scholars believe that the "first-born" more logically refers to Adam. Some believe Philo is making a cross between allegory and pun, using the words "rising" and "east." Either way, I fail to see how Carrier's interpretation fits into this, and find both of those interpretations far more likely than Carrier's.

3) Philo's view being the popular one

Even if we grant Carrier the other two, there's no evidence whatsoever that Philo's view (per Carrier) was the dominant one.

Conclusion: I believe I have shown here that Carrier's interpretations are not viable. Even if they were viable, they'd have to contend with the much more logical interpretations of Zechariah and Philo put forth by other scholars, and the fact that Philo's interpretation (per Carrier) has nothing to suggest it was a dominant or popular viewpoint.
 * Thanks for that. Friedman (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)