User talk:Dbz

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Dbz!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

welcome oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Spamming stuff[edit]

First of all, you're not a sysop, so you're not actually rolling back edits. Second, can you please stop spamming and reverting your edits? It's clogging up the Recent Changes, and if you continue doing that, I have no choice but to vandal bin you. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 01:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, no more reverting my edits. I was not trying to "roll back edits" but initially inadvertently clicked on the "rollback x edits" link and then tried to figure out what happened by clicking on it again and again. Then repeating in the sandbox.
  • The "rollback x edits" link confuses me since it has no confirmation—it just does it and displays a "Done" summary.
Dbz (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


Whoops, wrong person sorry.Tabula Rasa (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


{{Mop}} I demoted you to sysop. FYI this gives you extra buttons. — Dysk (contribs) 00:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


You appear to be doing a huge amount of copypasta (non-original editing). I advise you to cease immediately. I don't care if it has CC licensing; it is not desired on RW. Bongolian (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

~Someone forgot to give you an award[edit]

HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
For improving Critics of the historicity of Jesus which was a stub, and doing so all alone.

(Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of Christian teachings about Second-god (Christ)[edit]

If New Testament scholars are correct that for Paul, χριστός means “Christ”; not “messiah”. Then it is very likely that Paul meant χρηστός (Chrestos i.e. Second-god); not Χριστός (Christos i.e. Meshiah [ משׁיח —lit. “anointed one”), in light of the fact that all the extant reproductions (prior to the fourth century) of the original manuscripts (non-extant) of his authentic letters (epistles) only us the abbreviation ΧΣ which can be for Christos or Chrestos.

• Novenson, Matthew V. (2012). "The Modern Problem of Christ and the Messiahs". Christ among the messiahs : Christ language in Paul and messiah language in ancient Judaism. Oxford University Press. pp. 32–33. ISBN 9780199844579.

When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”

It is commonly maintained that Paul wrote at least six letters (Pauline epistles) in the 50s of the 1st century CE proclaiming and commenting on Second-god. As an Apostle, Paul had a personal relationship with this god (see Second-god (Christ)).

NB. Caveat Emptor! The original manuscripts (MSS) for the Pauline epistles are not extant and the reproductions are chopped, pressed, and formed like a chicken nugget is to a breaded chicken tender.

For the next 20 to 50 years the earliest original (or else redacted) MSS from Christians are a few other letters in the New Testament; like 1 Peter, James, Jude, and Hebrews, and possibly the first letter from Clement of Rome.

Then 70 to c. 120 (or even later..) CE, the first gospel is written, possibly inspired by a historicised theatrical pageant about Second-god. And then a series of redactions and embellishments of the original (Euangélion katà Mârkon) are published with the caveat that the last (Euangélion katà Iōánnēn) is new fan fiction of the previous redactions and the original.

The reliance of Euangélion katà Mârkon on the "original Pauline epistles" has been observed by many scholars. Carrier writes, "Mark’s whole Gospel feels like it has been inspired by Paul’s teachings. Its narrative is inordinately concerned with Gentiles and the criticism of Jewish legalism." Some paradigmatic examples are: "The Pauline Chiasmus", "Jesus on Taxation", and "The Last Supper". Dykstra writes:

The primary intended audience would then be the same as for the epistles: established Christian communities in which the battle between the competing gospels [in the sense of the message] continued to rage. The primary purpose of the [Markan] gospel narrative would then be to assert that Paul’s gospel was correct, that Paul’s interpretation of the significance of the person of Christ and his crucifixion and resurrection was the correct one, and that Paul’s opponents were wrong even though they could boast of close personal connections to Jesus while Paul could not. [Dykstra 2012, pp. 37–38. ISBN 978-1-60191-020-2.]

--Dbz (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)--Dbz (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The mythicism "theory" is not precise[edit]

The mythicism theory is not precise because the historicity theory is not precise due to the existence of two camps; the secular academy and the non-secular academy. But not distinguishing "all" mythicist arguments from "all" peer reviewed scholarly arguments is disingenuous. Per Meggitt 2019, p. 447. "It would be a rather thankless and dispiriting task to correct the egregious errors of . . . Kersey Graves or Acharya S, but it would be unfair for the contributions of Brodie, Price, Carrier and Wells to ‘be tarnished with the same brush or be condemned with guilt by association’; indeed such scholars are generally as critical of the failings of the excesses of fellow mythicists as any others."

A precise historicity theory would look very similar to Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED]:

[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

  1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
  2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
  3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

but perhaps with modifications and caveats e.g.:

  • Per said man, He would in actual fact have been named Yeshu or Yeshua, as Jesus was the Latinised version of the name, which a historical Jesus would not have used.
  • Per said followers, ‘This is the movement which grew into what we now know as the Christian faith’. It is otherwise theoretically possible that there might have been some other movement of people following a Yeshua who was executed while meanwhile Christianity arose from a mythical Yeshua/Jesus.
  • etc.

Perhaps in a peer reviewed defense of the historicity theory published by a respected academic press this could be found?

Osiris presents the most apt theological parallel: as Plutarch explains in his treatise on the cult, in public stories Osiris was placed in history as a historical king subsequently deified, but in private exegesis these were explained as allegories for the actual truth of the matter, which was that each year Osiris descends and becomes incarnate and is slain not on earth, but in the lower heavens, and then rises from the dead and reascends to power in the upper heavens, having gained power over death by this cosmic ritual, which he then shares with his earthly devotees. In the earliest redaction we can reconstruct of the Ascension of Isaiah this appears to be exactly what was imagined to happen for Jesus, only once for all, not yearly.

Lataster ISBN:9789004408784 "interprets" Richard Carrier’s exhaustive (ca. 600 pages) case for mythicism in On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. --Dbz (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


• Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].

[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

  1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
  2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
  3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

Loftus, John W. (2021). "Preface". In Loftus; Price (in en). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press. ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9. 

All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too! It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.

Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the historicity of Jesus : why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse. Leiden. pp. 2f. ISBN 978-9004397934. 

[We should] use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’.

NB:"minimally historical figure" and "biblicist's historical figure" are synonymous. --Dbz (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


• Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.

[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary. [Wells 2009, pp. 14–15.]

The gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed
The gospels do not support a rounded figure but a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed
The gospels do not support a Jesus figure and a position of agnosticism is held on the historicity of Jesus
Jesus is probably ahistorical
Bart Ehrman – American New Testament professor and writer
George Albert WellsWikipedia – English Professor of German and writer
Raphael Lataster – Australian credentialed teacher of religious studies and writer
Richard Carrier – American credentialed historian and writer

The final viewpoint of G. A. Wells is that of the "biblicist", not the "historicist".
As is

R. Joseph HoffmannWikipedia – American theologian and writer

I no longer believe it is possible to answer the 'historicity question'. … Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer. [Hoffmann, R. Joseph (2009). "Threnody: Rethinking the Thinking behind The Jesus Project". Archived from the original on 9 October 2009.  The Bible and Interpretation]

--Dbz (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


Per NT studies, which has two camps: secular and non-secular. If it was up to me a simple Litmus test (politics) to weed out potentially biased non-secular scholars is to ask the following: Do these scholars have an on-the-record position, in clear and unambiguous language, without equivocation for the “Historicity of the Mosaic authorship of the Torah” and the “Historicity of the resurrection of Jesus?

Additionally the following questions should be presented to any secular or non-secular “Defender of the Historicity of Jesus”: •What is the “minimal theory of historicity” that they hold? (And then compare it with Carrier’s rigorous and robust “minimal theory of historicity” •Do they denounce the scholars and the enablers that are party to the systemic censorship of free thought found within religiously affiliated institutions?

Certain types of scholarly results bring in more funding and prestige which in turn promotes certain types of scholarly results in an endless reinforcement cycle --Dbz (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Scholars on Paul's second god[edit]

Where's Wally? (Where's Waldo? in North America)Wikipedia – Earth or the Celestial realm?>ref name="Carrier.2020.9" />
All [the evidence historicists cite] from the Epistles [is] hopelessly vague and theological, not plain references to an earthly life of Jesus at all. Which is already by itself extremely strange. Why is this all we have, and not numerous debates and discussions and questions about Jesus’ ministry and trial and death or his miracles or parables or how he chose or affected or instructed the people who knew him? How has Paul never heard of the word “disciple” or that anyone was Jesus’ hand-picked representative in life? Why is he always weirdly vague; for instance, ascribing the death of Jesus to “archons of this eon” (1 Corinthians 2:6–10), which he characterizes as spiritual rather than terrestrial forces (as he there says they would understand esoteric details of God’s planned magical formulae), rather than to “Pontius Pilate” or “the Romans” or “the Jews”? Why does he never say Jesus’ death occurred “in Jerusalem”? How can Paul avoid in some 20,000 words ever making any clear reference to Jesus being on Earth? How can every question, argument, or opposition he ever faced have avoided referencing things Jesus said or did in life? He never referenced them. He never had them cited against him. He is never asked about them. That’s weird. And weird is just another word for improbable. Unless the only Jesus any Christians yet knew, was a revealed being, not an earthly minister.
—Richard Carrier

sfn|Carrier|2020|pp=47–48}}>ref>Carrier (14 March 2021). "Should We Assume Jesus Was Historical? The Mythvision Carrier-McDonald Debate".  Richard Carrier Blogs.>/ref>}}

Carrier asserts that certain aspects of Paul's Jesus (being "a preexistent superbeing, who eventually had a body of flesh manufactured for him so he could die"}}sfn|Carrier|2020|pp=31–32}}) are confirmed by Philo and by the author of Hebrews. Carrier writes:

In his letter to the Romans, Paul confirms that Jesus was sent from outer space by God and given a mortal body to wear for the mission (8:3). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul reveals that Jesus was indeed an angel (4:14). And again in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says Jesus was God’s agent of creation at the dawn of time (8:6), a belief confirmed by the authors of Hebrews (1:2, 2:9–10, 2:17) and Colossians, who wrote that Jesus was indeed “the firstborn of all creation” (1:15). The author of Hebrews 9 also confirms that Jesus was the high priest of God’s celestial temple in the farthest reaches of outer space—a role we know ancient Jews always reserved for an archangel, usually Michael, or an ambiguous “archangel of many names” (as the Jewish theologian Philo describes it in On the Confusion of Tongues §146–47, which predates all Christian writing).


Philo, a helenized JewWikipedia (see Word of God §. Hellenistic Judaism and logos), wrote that the archangel (second-god) he worshiped had many names, but the only specific name Philo ever mentions this angel having is Anatole (Rising One).>ref name="Carrier.2017.Gullotta">Carrier (16 December 2017). "On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review". >/ref> However Philo does attribute to this second-god elements that Paul also attributes to his second-god, such as:

  • Firstborn son of God ← Romans 8:29.
  • Celestial image of God ← 2 Corinthians 4:4.
  • God's Agent of Creation ← 1 Corinthians 8:6.>ref>slide 14 of PDF Slide show provided by Carrier>/ref>

And from other of the earliest Christian documents:

  • God's celestial high priest ← Hebrews 2:17 4:14, etc.>ref name="Carrier.2020.17" />

Furthermore Philo also interprets the Jesus in Zechariah 6 as this angel. Therefore Philo must also have believed this second-god was not just named Anatole but also named Jesus.>ref name="Carrier.2017.Gullotta" />>ref name="Carrier.2017.Zechariah">Carrier (9 December 2017). "The Difference Between a Historian and an Apologist".  Richard Carrier Blogs. "[Zechariah 6] was written about Jesus ben Jehozadak (literally, “Jesus, Son of God the Righteous”), the first High Priest of the second temple. It’s his coronation. Philo says the Logos (God’s “Firstborn Son”) is the Son of God and the High Priest. Who is the Son of God and the High Priest in this passage? There is only one: Jesus. It’s therefore clear, Philo is reading this as a coronation declaration to Jesus, not of someone else (and note, there isn’t anyone else present to “behold” but him).">/ref> Carrier writes:

[T]o believe that Philo did not interpret this verse as being about the same person [sc. Jesus Son of God and High Priest]—to insist, instead, that Philo thought the Anatolê was someone else, like the king Zerubbabel, and not the Jesus Son of God and High Priest being told this in that passage—requires assuming three bizarre and thus improbable coincidences. Whereas to believe that Philo is reading this passage as all about the same person [sc. Jesus Son of God and High Priest] (regardless of how other interpreters ever read it), does not require any of those coincidences, and thus does not accumulate any of those improbabilities.>ref>Carrier (9 December 2017). "The Difference Between a Historian and an Apologist".  Richard Carrier Blogs.>/ref>

The Christology of Paul establishes the celestial pre-existence of Jesus and identifies him as KyriosWikipedia (Lord). The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord, rather than perhaps the "Daemon Lord Sarapis" or else some similar "False Lord". Frances Young writes:

[I]n 1 Corinthians (11:23–6), Paul had recalled what happened at the Last Supper [note 1] as if the story were an aetiological cult-myth, and had insisted that there could be no communion between the ‘table of the Lord’ and the ‘table of the daemons’. Papyri found at Oxyrhynchus reveal invitations to ‘sup at the table of the lord Sarapis’. (P. Oxy. 110 and 523.)


Reading Paul’s words in the context they were in ("which is of a strongly affirmed honor/shame society, as analyzed by the likes of Bruce MalinaWikipedia et al.">ref>Comment by Richard Carrier—26 August 2020—per "Antonio Piñero: Raving Historicist".  Richard Carrier Blogs. 31 July 2020.>/ref>) then it is highly probable that Paul promoted the viewpoint that Christians should not dishonor the true god lord (i.e. second-god) and its father (i.e. first-god) by giving titles of honor—such as kyrios (lord) and theos (god)—to evil beings. However as Carrier notes, "Just because Jews [including Paul] tried to avoid the specific Greek word theos when speaking of any other deity . . . simply for reasons of honor and to avoid offense, does not mean they did not regard other beings as gods.">ref>Carrier (31 July 2020). "Antonio Piñero: Raving Historicist".  Richard Carrier Blogs.>/ref> Thus Paul held a position of Christian monolatrism derived from the honor-based monolatry of Judaism. Carrier writes:

[What Paul] is calling “demons,” “principalities,” “fallen angels,” “Satan,” are what we mean by the word gods today—and what most ancient Greeks would all recognize as such, too. The peculiar insistence of Jews calling their gods angels was quaint and weird among their Hellenic peers.>ref>Comment by Richard Carrier—1 August 2020—per "Antonio Piñero: Raving Historicist".  Richard Carrier Blogs. 31 July 2020.>/ref>

One of the most relevant questions is: Did a group of Jews prior to Paul worship/revere a celestial second-god with similar attributes as those Paul attributed to his celestial Jesus, his Christ lord, his second-god?>ref name="Lataster.2019c.Philo" /> Lataster writes:

Ehrman argues that since there are Jewish texts that outlaw angel worship, there must have been Jews worshipping ‘non-God’ divine beings. . . . Ehrman even refers to the Son of Man of 1 Enoch as the “cosmic judge of the earth”, and acknowledges that some considered him to be the Messiah, and worshipped him ([How Jesus Became God] pp. 66-68). He also gives a nod to ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Logos’, and admits that Philo of Alexandria describes his Logos as divine, as God’s first born. Ehrman even realises that the Tanakh made it very easy for Jews to incorporate similar ideas from the Ancient Greeks (such as the Wisdom figure appearing in Proverbs 8, and Genesis 1’s ‘creative Logos’). All this only bolsters the claims . . . that all the elements needed to create Christianity, without a HJ [Historical Jesus], were already present in Judaism.


Many Jewish counter-cultureWikipedia sects>ref name="Levine.2002.132" /> were extant during the period in question that may have influenced or even competed with the Jewish sect that Paul joined—now termed as the original "Christian" sect—which may have originally been named "The Brothers of the Lord".>ref>Carrier (1 July 2019). "Spencer Alexander McDaniel on the Historicity of Jesus".  Richard Carrier Blogs. "[Paul] says he met James “the Brother of the Lord,” Lord being a cultic title, not a personal name, for the figure also known as Jesus (literally Joshua, a common name, but also aptly meaning “God’s Savior”). Paul says all baptized Christians are Brothers of the Lord (OHJ, p. 108). Indeed from what we can tell in Paul, this sounds like an original name for their sect: the Brothers of the Lord (OHJ, pp. 582-92).">/ref> Carrier writes:

The distinguishing characteristic of a Christian sect would be the archangel Jesus having died. There is no evidence Paul knew of any Christian sect preaching “another kind of death.”


Paul is never clear on what sort of death is meant. The words he uses also referred to standard Jewish executions (as for example by stoning). I cite scholarship and evidence of that in OHJ (pp. 61-62). So, for example, the sect outside the Roman Empire that preached Christ was stoned and then crucified, by the Jews (OHJ, Ch. 8.1; which Paul could be referring to, as he is sufficiently vague) could be more original than the souped up version invented possibly by Mark that has the Romans do it in collusion with the Jews.

Other than that, there probably were pre-Christian sects (one of which probably became Christian, by novel revelation) that did revere the archangel Jesus and probably even taught he would be the coming messiah, but had not yet come to the conclusion that he’d died to effect his plans, thus had already initiated the end times timetable. There are hints in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the sect(s) represented there did have some such view (and may even have written up pesher prophecies of that angel’s future planned death). But we don’t know that for sure, we don’t know if the only such sect simply became Christianity, we don’t know if any members of that sect protested the revelation and stuck to the original timetable and thus broke away, we don’t know if there were other sects never impacted by the revelation who continued preaching their own thing. Paul does say there were sects preaching “another Jesus” whom the Christians should shun. So those could have been any of the above, for example.

Another way to look at it is: the manner of death was too trivial to have a schism over at that point, especially as Paul is so vague about it—and you don’t go vague on a point that’s creating schisms; that’s what creeds are for: to demarcate what’s valid and what’s anathema. So clearly there were no anathemas regarding means of the killing; vagueness would at best mean an intent to “big tent” the movement and unite schisms. Notice that by the time we get to Ignatius, now the manner of death is a schism point built into the creed, indicating that>ref>Carrier (9 November 2017). "How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?".  Richard Carrier Blogs>/ref> by then there certainly were sects disagreeing (though exactly what they were disagreeing on or why we can only speculate). But that’s almost a hundred years later. But there could well have been sects still revering or expecting the Jesus angel as not having died, and who (like possibly Philo) thought it absurd that he would ever do so, and/or who (like possibly the Qumran sect) thought it was not time yet for it to happen, who were competing with Christian sects. They could be the “other Jesus’s” Paul talks about. But we sadly just don’t know.>ref>Comment by Richard Carrier—23 May 2018—per "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs. 26 April 2018.>/ref>

Christian peshers[edit]

Hebrew for ‘commentary’ and particularly used for commentaries on the OT in the Dead Sea scrolls, which looked for hidden meanings in the text which were seen to apply to and to justify the community's way of life. The NT use of OT texts has some similarity with this method…
A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by W. R. F. Browning>ref>"Pesher" In A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by W. R. F. Browning. Oxford Biblical Studies Online. (accessed 3 May 2021).>/ref>

Peter as the putative founder of Christianity may have created a pesher that he used to recruit followers to his cult. This hypothetical pesher would have revealed God's plan for Jesus to bring about salvation.>ref>"An Expert Explains Mythicism with Dr Richard Carrier @time 00:34:48".  YouTube. Lloyd Evans. 1 May 2021.>/ref>

The Markan text was written at least forty years after the Christian religion began (then an average human lifetime), and thus was responding to recent events (the destruction of Jerusalem). We can not explain the origins of Christianity by appealing to the Markan text or to the author's motives; The Markan text is a latecomer that was responding to profound changes in the religion and its circumstances. The religion itself began long before it was known that the Romans would actually destroy Jerusalem (early Christian thinking was then more in line with Daniel, which never mentions this, but only the temple’s “desecration,” after which God and his angels would destroy everything).>ref>Comment by Richard Carrier—13 June 2021—per "Was Jesus-Is-Michael an Early Christian Mystery Teaching?". Richard Carrier Blogs. 2021-06-11.>/ref>

The name Jesus as an alias[edit]

The first Christians believed Jesus was an eternal being who descended from what they understood to be outer space. Darrell Hannah asserts that the name Jesus was an alias for the Archangel Michael, an alias that means God’s Messianic Savior, suggesting that the name is fabricated: Christ means Anointed ergo Messiah/Messianic; and Jesus, i.e. Joshua, i.e. Yeshua, means God’s Savior.>ref>Carrier (2021-06-11). "Was Jesus-Is-Michael an Early Christian Mystery Teaching?".  Richard Carrier Blogs.>/ref>

Paul Davidson notes that the belief in an Archangel with a "multifaceted, cosmic identity wasn’t introduced by an itinerant Galilean preacher, nor did it originate with the teachings of the early apostles, for the notion of a divine saviour described in these terms was already widespread in Judaism before Christianity was born.">ref name="Davidson.2020.Michael" /> Writing:

Jews reading the LXX would have concluded that each nation had an angel assigned to it. The evidence for this belief beginning in the second century BCE is widespread (Sirach 17:17 and 24, Jubilees 15.31f., the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch, etc.; see Culianu, p. 81). Furthermore, these angels were held responsible for the actions of worldly kings (cf. Isaiah 24:21-22), and the angels of the nations would even fight amongst each other, as explicitly depicted in The Ascension of Isaiah.

1 Enoch 20 and book of Daniel applied this tradition to Israel itself and identified Michael as the angelic guardian of the Jewish nation.

[Paul Davidson (2020-09-20). "Michael the Great Prince and Saviour of Israel". Is That in the Bible?]